Section 96 tribunal test turns on institutional character, not mere judicial power, for labour relations boards.

A provincial labour relations board with administrative and quasi-judicial powers, including certification of bargaining units, recognition of unions, reinstatement orders and monetary relief, was examined for compatibility with section 96 of the British North America Act, 1867. The governing test was whether the board's jurisdiction and institutional character made it analogous to a superior, district or county court, not merely whether it exercised some judicial power. Because its subject-matter, composition, appointment structure, representative character and policy-driven functions differed materially from those courts, enforceable orders and limited review did not place it within the protected constitutional class.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Labour Relations Board constituted under the Trade Union Act, 1944 was a tribunal analogous to a superior, district or county court within section 96 of the British North America Act, 1867, so that the impugned provisions empowering it to make binding orders were beyond provincial competence.

Analysis: The scheme of the Act gave the Board wide administrative and quasi-judicial functions, including determination of bargaining units, certification of representative unions, and orders for reinstatement and monetary relief for unfair labour practices. The relevant constitutional question was not merely whether the Board exercised judicial power in some measure, but whether its jurisdiction and institutional features made it comparable to the superior, district or county courts contemplated by section 96. The Board differed fundamentally from those courts in subject-matter, composition, method of appointment, representative character, and the policy-driven character of much of its work. Its power to make enforceable orders, its immunity from ordinary review, and its role in collective bargaining did not convert it into a court of the constitutional class protected by section 96.

Conclusion: The Board was not a tribunal analogous to a superior, district or county court, and the relevant provisions of the Act were not ultra vires on that ground; the appeal succeeded on the constitutional issue.

Final Conclusion: The impugned Board could validly exercise the statutory functions conferred on it, and the matter had to be reconsidered below on the remaining grounds that had not yet been determined.

Ratio Decidendi: A provincial tribunal is not within section 96 of the British North America Act, 1867 unless its jurisdiction and institutional character broadly conform to the type of jurisdiction exercised by the superior, district or county courts named in that section.

---