BOOK REVIEWS
COMPTES RENDUS
Administrative Law, 2d ed. By David J. Mullan. Toronto: Carswell, 1979.
Pp. 283.
Professors are expected to produce learned dissertations on
arcane topics and are promoted and tenured on that basis. Other
types of writing, popularizations for laymen as well as syntheses for
students, are often ignored in the quest for original thought and
for promotion. David Mullan proved his mettle in the “normal”
professorial arts when he wrote his justly celebrated articles on
fairness.’ He succeeded at the less conventional task of synthesis
in his book Administrative Law.2 Now, the second edition of Ad-
ministrative Law has both updated the synthesis and refined it
considerably.
Administrative Law makes no pretence to being an exhaustive
text of Canadian administrative law.3 However, Mullan provides
concise notes on almost all areas of administrative law, together
with references to jurisprudence, and it is likely that if an answer
to a specific problem were urgently required, Mullan’s book could
furnish it more rapidly and more efficiently than a full-fledged text.
Mullan’s work could also help bring a new simplicity to administra-
tive law. There can be no doubt that the great increase in the im-
portance of government, coupled with the sudden interest in theories
of fairness and natural justice, has left administrative law in a state
of flux. In these circumstances, many have expressed the need for
a return to fundamental principles and for the removal of obscure
distinctions.4 What tool could be more useful for this than a clear
1 Mullan, Fairness: The New Natural Justice? (1975) 25 U.T.L.J. 281; Mullan,
Martineau and Butters v. Matsqui Institution Inmate Disciplinary Board:
Its Potential Impact on the Jurisdiction of the Trial Division of the Federal
Court (1978) 24 McGill L.J. 92.
2 Mullan, Administrative Law (1973).
SThe only work with a serious claim to that is Dussault, Traitd de droit
administratif canadien et qudbdcois (1974).
4 See the judgement of Dickson J. in Martineau v. Matsqui Institution
No. 2 (1979) 30 N.R. 119 (S.C.C.) as vell as R. v. Wilson (1977) 32 F.L.R. 399
(F.C. Austr.).
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 26
and precise digest drafted as objectively as possible, with very brief
evaluations of the contradictory cases?
Mullan’s book is in fact the administrative law portion of the
Canadian Encyclopedic Digest.5 There need be no apology for this
it has survived for centuries.0 Certainly, in ad-
type of work –
ministrative law this type of synthesis has become essential and
Mullan has filled a very real vacuum.
In an area as complex and as confused as administrative law, the
most important decision is the division of the subject into topics.
Mullan deals first (and rather briskly) with the character of the
decision-maker. Then he covers the manner in which decisions are
taken, which he distinguishes from the scope and correctness of
decisions. Since the traditional concept of ultra vires cuts across
these two categories
some may find Mullan’s classification un-
wieldy, but on the whole it does seem to clarify the material, and
that is Mullan’s purpose. Finally, Mullan devotes a section to tra-
ditional common law remedies and to the statutory remedies of
Canada and Ontario. Mullan’s scheme is not a startling or innovative
one, but it maximizes clarity and logic and is therefore admirably
suited to a digest.
The content of Mullan’s work is on that high level to which
he has accustomed his readers. The digest is well-written, incisive,
and taut. It is obvious that Mullan was thorough in his research,
for the scope of his references is very great and he has used cases
from all areas of administrative law. He is particularly helpful on
issues of procedure and evidence, which have often been neglected
for the more glamorous field of natural justice. For instance,
Mullan’s treatment of sufficiency of evidence (p. 159) and of affi-
davit evidence to prove error of law on the face of the record (p.
177) are extremely praiseworthy. One must praise also his approach
to the issue of review of subordinate legislation. By reading Mullan’s
twenty-one pages devoted to this topic, one can rid oneself of much
of the uncertainty which has clouded this area of law.
Mullan made a conscious decision to emphasiz.e Ontario law
and to discuss Ontario statutes rather than those of other pro-
vinces. This may be a very good decision since the other provinces
5 C.E.D. (Ont.), 3d ed., vol. 1, title 3.
6 There is some conceptual similarity between this digest and Justinian’s
great work. See Kunkel, An Introduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional
History (1966).
“See Anisminic v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 A.C. 147
(H.L.).
1980)
BOOK REVIEWS – LIVRES NOUVEAUX
tend to use Ontario statutes as a model for legislation,” and it is
clearly not possible to deal with everything.
Finally, one must thank Mullan for providing not only a list
of cases but a list of articles which he consulted. Recent Supreme
Court decisions 9 are full of refercnces to such doctrine and show
the growing importance of academic writing in complex areas of
law.
A work which attempts to cover all of administrative law inevit-
ably misses a few problems. One may regret the absence of dis-
cussiQi of the controversial boundary line between private and
public law and the connected issue of domestic tribunals. It is per-
haps unfortunate as well that ‘the notion of Crown prerogative was
not studied in relation to tort and contract, and that problems
arising from such cases as Manitoba Fisheries v. The Queen 0 were
not touched. However, one should not overemphasize these lacunae,
because they detract very little from the high quality of the book.
David Mullan has clearly produced a useful and much needed
synthesis in a crucial area of law. He has once again demonstrated
his great ability and has produced a first-rate work which will be
of assistance to practitioners, to students preparing for examina-
tions, and to those who wish a launching pad to a more detailed
analysis of the various topics in administrative law.
Julius H. Grey*
sExcept Quebec, but Quebec has a somewhat similar work in Ouellette
& Pdpin, Pricis de contentieux administratif (1977).
9 See Coopers & Lybrand v. M.N.R. [1979] 1 S.C.R. 495 and Martineau v.
Matsqui Institution No. 2, supra, note 4.
10 [1979] 1 S.C.R. 101.
* Faculty of Law, McGill University.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 26
Law and Politics, The House of Lords as a Judicial Body, 1800-1976. By
Robert Stevens. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1978. Pp.
xviii, 701.
This book is obviously a labour of love. To sit down and read
all reported judgements and every accessible unreported opinion
since 1830, and then to attempt to organize the materials to de-
monstrate that contemporary social and political attitudes cannot
be ignored in considering the development of the law during this
era, is a task of Herculean proportions. Whether or not one is
convinced that the author has succeeded in demonstrating that their
Lordships are actively engaged in some form of law-making, and
that law is not the logical application of principle to a new setting,
must ultimately depend on the extent to which one believes that
one can discover a man’s social and political attitudes by reading
his judicial opinions. But whether or not one believes that the thesis
is made out, one cannot help but admire the industry and erudition
which this work reflects.
The book has its origins in a series of lectures
(given in
Northern Ireland) which sought to assess the judicial role of the
House of Lords as part of British society and British government.
These lectures have been expanded by the addition of a large
amount of material dealing with developments in the substantive
law. This unfortunately leads to excessive footnoting and as a
result the book cannot be described as an easy read. Nevertheless,
the style is admirably clear, and it is often the footnotes that are
the most entertaining part of the book. Thus we are told that Lord
Sumner was a bitter man who resented his humble beginnings
and early disappointments, that he was widely disliked and that
only his wife attended his funeral (n. 125, p. 265). The footnotes
also contain intriguing references to unreported decisions which
seem to be at odds with generally received views (see, e.g., n. 73, p.
144 on parol evidence, and n. 33, p. 136 on corporate opportunity).
The book is divided into five parts. The Introduction and Part
I take us up to 1912 and describe the evolution of the judicial arm
of the House of Lords. In many ways this is the most interesting
part of the book for it brings home to us, in sharp relief, that the
Judicial Committee of the House of Lords evolved in response to
naked power politics. In places one can scarcely believe how primi-
tive things once were. For example, until the end of the eighteenth
century their Lordships considered it a breach of privilege to re-
port judicial appeals. During the early part of the nineteenth century,
justice was meted out in the most extraordinary way in that august
1980]
BOOK REVIEWS – LIVRES NOUVEAUX
tribunal. What follows is an extract from a pamphlet by Leahy,
quoted by Mr Stevens at page 21:
Two peers are summoned in rotation from a list made out at the
beginning of every session, and one different every day. As the Chan-
cellor considers it his peculiar duty to attend to the case before the
HouSe, the other Lords, very justly, look upon themselves as only
present for the purpose of producing the necessary quorum of appellate
authority. The duty of attending appeals is distributed as evenly as can
be done amongst all members of the Peerage whose services are desir-
able; and, therefore, no individual peer attends a second time until all
then in town have had a term at the work. If
the other peers
therefore the hearing of a case continues for three days, it is heard
on the first day by Lords A. and B; or, more correctly speaking, they are
present at the hearing. The Lords summoned for the second day will
be Lords C. and D; and for the third, Lords E. and F. When the judgment
comes to be delivered, the Lords present, besides the Lord Chancellor,
will be Lords G. and H. The Chancellor, on this last occasion, recom-
mends their Lordships to make a certain decree; and to that recom-
mendation an immediate compliance is accorded by the Lords G. and H.,
who in consequence of the arrangement above stated, have hot been
present during any part of the hearing.
The book then proceeds to trace the workings of the House from
1912 to the present day. This period is broken up into three parts:
1912-1940 (the rise of the professionals), 1940-1955 (the era of
substantive formalism), and 1955-1976 (modem times).
It is impossible, and perhaps undesirable, in a short review to
state whether or not one agrees with the author’s assessment of the
contribution and jurisprudential orientation of individual judges.
So much, of course, depends on one’s own jurisprudential make-up
and on personal interpretations of particular opinions. Looking at
my notes at random, I find that I was in complete agreement with
the author’s assessment of Lord Cairns and Lord Selborne (pp.
115-116), was shocked and dismayed to learn of Halsbury’s jug-
gling of panels to ensure the “reversal” of Allen v. Flood [1898] A.C.
1 (p. 93), considered that the author had been a little too generous
to Birkenhead (pp. 235-236), was in broad agreement with the
author’s assessment of Lord Wilberforce (pp. 555-562), but thought
Lord Diplock’s long-term impact had perhaps been underestimated.
The book is generally very well produced with few misprints.
Towards the end, however, something seems to have gone badly
wrong because many of the notes (see, e.g., pp. 591, 592) are only
partially completed.
Francis Dawson*
* Of the Faculty of Law, McGill University.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 26
Les droits des bdndficiaires d’un usufruit, d’une substitution et d’une
fiducie. Par Madeleine Cantin Cumyn. Montr6al: Wilson & Lafleur Ltde, 1980.
Pp. x, 134.
On espbre depuis 1950 la publication du quatri~me num6ro de
la collection McGill Legal Studies. Heureusement, la qualit6 du texte
choisi fait oublier la longueur de l’attente. Nous sommes d’avis que
l’ouvrage de Me Cantin Cumyn apporte une contribution importan-
te h la doctrine qu6b6coise, contribution dont l’int6r&t demeurera
quoi qu’il advienne des recommandations soumises par l’Office de
r6vision du Code civil. Ailleurs, dans un commentaire sur le Pro jet
de Code civil, nous avions l’occasion d’6crire “a new civil law treatise
is probably more crucial in the long run than a new Civil Code”.1
Nous entendions, par lh, signaler la faiblesse de la doctrine analyti-
que, l’absence quasi totale d’6tudes thdoriques dans plusieurs do-
maines, et particuli~rement l’inexistence de textes d’ensemble trai-
tant de diverses institutions r6glement6es par le Code civil. Cette
p6nurie d’ouvrages portant sur des matieres purement civiles (no-
tamment au niveau du droit des biens) a g6n6 l’6volution jurispru-
dentielle, permettant que des solutions juridiquement inacceptables
fassent autorit6. En effet, sans essai de parall~le entre les institu-
tions juridiques propres au droit civil canadien, on risque, en cer-
tains cas, d’en confondre les caract6ristiques au point de mettre en
danger leur identitd m6me.
Le texte de Me Cantin Cumyn permet pr6cis6ment d’6viter les
difficult6s soulign6es. II se veut tn examen de “trois institutions
pouvant servir de m6canisme pour la r6alisation des lib6ralit6s
qu’un disposant se propose de faire h divers groupes de b6n6fi-
ciaires, soit l’usufruit, la substitution et la fiducie”.’ Traitant d’une
mati~re fonci~rement civile, cette monographie se pr6sente comme
une 6tude approfondie du sujet trait6, ne n6gligeant toutefois pas
la n6cessaire analyse syst6matique de plusieurs notions de base tels
que le concept de propri6t6, la distinction entre les droits r6els et
personnels, les d6membrements de la propri6t6, et l’administration
du bien d’autrui. L’ouvrage comprend deux parties principales sans
compter, bien sfir, de br~ves introduction et conclusion. Dans un
premier temps, 1auteur 61abore les 616ments fondamentaux des
trois institutions discut6es et les cons6quences juridiques qu’ils
entrainent. Cet essai de parallle permet, h la fois, de clarifier les
.’Macdonald, Civil Law – Quebec – New Draft Civil Code in Perspective
(1980) 58 R. du B. can. 185, h la p. 202.
2 Cantin Cumyn, Les droits des bdngficiaires d’un usufruit, d’une substitu-
tion et d’une fiducie (1980), h la p. 1.
1980]
BOOK REVIEWS – LIVRES NOUVEAUX
crit~res servant A les distinguer l’une de l’autre, et de pr~ciser les
avantages 6ventuels que pr~sente chacun de ces modes de confec-
tion d’une lib6ralitY. Sont examin6s, par exemple, les diff6rents
points de d6part des droits des b~n6ficiaires, ainsi que les questions
relatives h leur droit respectif de disposer des biens donns. Une
deuxiRme partie du texte est consacrde 4 une analyse des divers
droits accord6s aux b6n6ficiaires, doubl6e d’une discussion des
similitudes et distinctions 4 op~rer entre les trois institutions h
cet 6gard. L’auteur discute, de plus, certaines questions pratiques
telles que la nature d’un usufruit d’actions de compagnie, les pou-
voirs de l’ex~cuteur testamentaire face h chaque institution et la
possibilitd de cumuler, soit un usufruit et une fiducie, soit un usu-
fruit et une substitution au sein d’une m~me lib6ralit6. En conclu-
sion, l’auteur discute sommairement les principales recommanda-
tions mises de l’avant par l’Office de r6vision de Code civil, nous
offrant une appreciation tant de l’esprit ayant anim6 la r6daction
du Projet de Code civil dans ce domaine, que du droit substantif
present6.
Toute monographie destin6e A une large audience doit compor-
ter plus qu’un simple texte critique. Me Cantin Cumyn nous fournit,
dans cette perspective, de multiples renvois h la doctrine comme
h la jurisprudence. Une table des mati~res d~taillde, une excellente
bibliographie, en plus des tables usuelles concernant les r~f~rences
auix articles des codes civil canadien et frangais de m~me qu’au
Projet de Code civil, h la jurisprudence et i la 16gislation, compli-
tent l’ouvrage. Somme toute, rauteur offre h ‘6tudiant un texte de
base pouvant lui 6tre utile dans plusieurs de ses cours de droit;
au notaire, une pr6sentation des avantages que comporte chacune
des trois institutions traitdes; h l’avocat, un outil de rdf~rence met-
tant en valeur les distinctions th~oriques h op6rer et, h la magis-
trature, g6n6ralement, une source utile h la r6daction de jugements
dans ce domaine.
Nous devons, toutefois, signaler quelques omissions. L’auteur
aurait pu, par exemple, lorsqu’elle discute de la question de l’nu-
m6ration limitative des droits reels dans le Code civil, 6laborer
plus avant ses conclusions. 8 D’autre part, on salt que, dans une so-
ci6t6 commerciale comme la n6tre, les sfirets se r6v~lent d’une
importance primordiale. Or, la lib6ralit6 d’une sfiret6, par exemple
une hypoth~que, un nantissement ou un “trust deed”, n’est pas
discut6e. Enfin, le notaire, notamment, eut pu profiter d’un com-
mentaire de quelques clauses de style employees dans les lib~ralitds.
3 Ibid., A la p. 47.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 26
Ces remarques demeurent, cependant, d’importance relative, ne
compromettant nullement la valeur de cette monographie.
Cette pr6sentation de trois institutions distinctes, mais voisines,
pernet d’espdrer leur emploi judicieux tant dans nos cours de
justice que dans nos facultds de droit. S’il est certaines conclusions
que nous ne pouvons partager, notamment en ce qui concerne
l’utilit6 de la distinction entre droits rdels et personnels ou encore
quant h quelques aspects de la fiducie, il demeure que le texte
offre une discussion s6rieuse de ces questions, rauteur motivant
les solutions auxquelles elle parvient. Pour ces raisons, nous n’hdsi-
tons pas h recommander l’ouvrage de Me Cantin Cumyn h tout
juriste qudbdcois, qu’il soit 6tudiant, notaire, avocat ou juge.
R. A. Macdonald*
* De la Facult6 de droit de lUniversitd McGill.
1980]
BOOK REVIEWS — LIVRES NOUVEAUX
Reviewing the Codes: A Student Primer
Professor Brian Hogan, the co-author (with J.C. Smith) of the
fine English text Criminal Law,1 remarked recently that the plethora
of annotated Canadian criminal codes, although of some help in
gaining an acquaintance with Canadian criminal law, “were not
unlike a street index without an accompanying map”.2 Serious
works in Canadian criminal law and its related areas have slowly
begun to appear in recent years, most notably Mewett and Man-
ning’s Criminal Law,8 but our practitioners and judges still tend to
rely rather heavily on the street indexes. This is quite a shortcoming
in itself, but adding to the problem is the fact that the annotated
codes are many and their quality variable. This holds true within
each individual work: marked disparities in quality exist from
volume to volume, and from one edition of a given code to the
next.
Format is the most obvious difference among the codes. Martin’s4
is an annual bound presentation, while Snow’s 5 employs a loose-leaf
format to ensure currency. Crankshaw’s6 and Tremeear’se maintain
an encyclopaedic approach and last appeared in complete editions
in 1959, although numerous supplements have appeared since then
to keep these important works current.
What do the editors of the annotated codes consider the function
of their products to be? E.L. Greenspan, the present editor of
Martin’s, expresses the hope in both the 1978 and 1979 editions
that readers “will continue to find in Martin’s a useful and accurate
survey of the criminal law of Canada”. 8 This is really to hope for
too much. None of the codes can truthfully be said to survey all
of the criminal law of Canada. These are annotated codes, not
comprehensive statements of the law. On the whole they have little
to say about the general part of the criminal law, a subject which,
by way of contrast, Professor Glanville Williams explores in a
‘Criminal Law, 4th ed. (1978).
2 1n a review of Mewett and Manning’s Canadian text on Criminal Law
(1978) in (1979) 5 Dal. LJ. 812.
8 Ibid.
4 Martin’s Annual Criminal Code, 1979, Greenspan (ed.).
5 Snow’s Annotated Criminal Code, 7th ed. (1979), Heather (ed.).
6 Crankshaw’s Criminal Code of Canada, 8th ed. (1979), vol. I, Rodrigues
(ed.).
7 Tremeear’s Annotated Criminal Code, 6th ed. (1964), Ryan (ed.).
8Supra, note 4, v.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 26
treatise of over nine hundred pages9 It is true that the codes in
varying degrees flirt with detailed considerations of difficult legal
problems, but the breadth of approach militates against complete-
ness, for the codes contain treatments not only of substantive crimi-
nal law, but also of criminal evidence and procedure. This is not to
deny the obvious usefulness of much that is contained in these
codes. What follows is a short review of some of their strengths
and weaknesses.
Martin’s Annual Criminal Code is the most popular of the
portable codes. It has recently been improved by more and better
annotations and by new references to many older leading cases
that were omitted in previous editions. The strength of this code
lies in its reliable presentation of the highest recently-reported
Canadian decisions on point. It is weak in its treatment of historical
material and comparative jurisprudence. The Martin’s of 1955 set
high, and as yet unequalled, standards in this regard. Regrettably,
it is out of print and unavailable as a companion to the present
edition. It should either be reprinted and its great usefulness drawn
once again to the attention of the profession, or be more heavily
exploited by the present editor for resource material.
Snow’s Annotated Criminal Code, now in its seventh edition,
has in recent years changed to a losse-leaf format,10 presumably to
assist updating as well as to avoid the planned obsolescence of
Martin’s annual bound volume. (Martin’s even goes so far as to
change the colour of its binding from one edition to the next.) The
quality and topicality of the annotations in Snow’s are inferior to
Martin’s, although other features compensate for this deficiency,
such as a useful, though limited, section entitled “Where to find
your law”. Although a complete revision of Snow’s is in progress,
the law is stated as of July 1978, while Martin’s purports to state
the law as at 30 June 1979.
Unfortunately, as “portable” codes, Martin’s and Snow’s lack the
depth of the other, more encyclopaedic codes. The 1955 edition of
Martin’s demonstrates that ease of carriage and the highest standard
of excellence can be achieved together. However, even the more
substantial annotated codes do not equal the sustained, integrated
and comprehensive inquiry in the better texts.
The last complete revision of Crankshaw’s Criminal Code of
Canada occurred in 1959. Numerous supplements to this fine code
9 Criminal Law: The General Part, 2d ed. (1961).
10 Known as the Cumulative Supplement Method.
19801
BOOK REVIEWS – LIVRES NOUVEAUX
have been issued in the past twenty-one years, and at last a major
revision is beginning to appear. One says “beginning” because the
format of Crankshaw’s has been altered, and the envisaged final
product is four loose-leaf volumes which together will form the
eighth edition. At the time of this writing, only the first of these,
covering sections 1 to 195.1 of the Code, has appeared.
Those familiar with earlier editions of Crankshaw’s should be
warned that this is not the same product. The days of the single
editor are gone. No longer do prodigious, solitary labourers like
A.E. Popple, L.J. Ryan, James Crankshaw or John Crankshaw
devote their energies to this kind of project. Crankshaw’s eighth
edition (volume one) indicates the efforts of a general editor (Gary
P. Rodrigues) and four contributing editors. The danger in the mul-
tiple-editor approach lies in the potential sacrifice of uniformity
and consistency, but a cursory examination of volume one indicates
that these pitfalls have been avoided. As regards volume one, Mr
Rodrigues is to be congratulated for his rigour and his fidelity to
the spirit of the earlier editions.
While the spirit remains, some major changes in substance
have occurred. The eighth edition describes itself as “the Criminal
Code of Canada with digests of cases, histories of sections, refer-
ences to articles and annotations and references to related statutes
and other sections of the Criminal Code”; the seventh, by contrast,
is subtitled “A Commentary on the Criminal Law of Canada: In-
cluding an Appendix Containing All Relevant Statutes and Forms
and a Comprehensive Index”. New to the eighth edition are histories
of the sections and the formally segregated and more comprehensive
references to related statutes, articles and annotations. Both will
be of use to the practitioner or researcher. One can, however, take
issue with the utility of bibliographical references which are limited
to the Criminal Reports and the Criminal Law Quarterly. Another
useful addition would have been the inclusion of references to all
relevant Canadian legal periodical material.
What has been said about the seventh edition of Crankshaw’s
may be equally said of the sixth edition of Tremeear’s Annotated
Criminal Code. The extraordinary efforts of L.J. Ryan resulted in a
product that is as wide-ranging and, comprehensive as that produced
by A.E. Popple. But that was 1959, and Crankshaw’s and Tremeear’s
largely covered the same terrain in the same fashion. No new
edition of this code has been produced to date. Since Crankshaw’s
has embarked on a somewhat novel course, we may yet see two
distinct and contrasting products of equal stature. In the meantime
Crankshaw’s eighth has the field to itself.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 26
Milligan’s Correlated Criminal Code and Selected Federal Sta-
tutes (1979) is by far the most novel and, unfortunately, least use-
ful of the codes. This is not truly an annotated code. Its editor
has coined a new term, “correlated”, to describe his product. His
work deliberately contains no reported cases, explanations, or in-
terpretations of the law. He believes these should be the subjects of
a separate work; as a former police officer and law instructor
he should be aware that they already are. Milligan’s work has a
limited usefulness, primarily to the dabbler in criminal law. Certainly
anyone with a need for knowledge beyond that which can be glean-
ed from a superficial reading of statutory provisions will have to
resort to sources other than this code. In essence Milligan has done
what the conscientious law student, practitioner or police officer
would have to do in making his way systematically through the
labyrinthine procedural and substantive provisions of the Code: he
has cross-referenced the text. References to related sections have
been provided in marginal notes. Words which have been statutorily
defined are underscored and often the statutory definition is re-
produced immediately following the section where the key word
appears. His method is somewhat more complex and idiosyncratic
than this brief description conveys; but the method works, and
there is a case to be made for the view that Milligan’s innovations
should be incorporated into the other annotated codes. Participants
in the criminal justice system can hardly rely solely on this code
as a guide to a “better and easier understanding of criminal law
and procedure in Canada”.” This code does include several statutes
which the other annotated codes could usefully incorporate. Among
these are the Identification of Criminals Act’2 and the Interpreta-
tion Act.13 Milligan also includes the War Measures Act. 1 4 This is
good, but having done so one may ask why he has omitted the
Official Secrets Act1 5 and the Combines Investigation Act.16 A more
debatable inclusion is a cumbersome system of classification of
offences employed by Milligan for pui-poses of identification and
cross-reference.
“Milligan’s Correlated Criminal Code and Selected Federal Statutes
(1979), Introduction.
12R.S.C. 1970, c. 1-1.
18R.S.C. 1970, c. 1-23.
14R.S.C. 1970, c. W-2.
15 R.S.C. 1970, c. 0-3.
16R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23.
1980]
BOOK REVIEWS – LIVRES NOUVEAUX
Lagarde’s Droit penal canadien17 is a magnificent work that is
available only in a French language edition, and thus largely unk-
nown or ignored outside Quebec. It last appeared in 1974 and
consists of three ]arge volumes which digest an enormous body of
case material, including many unfamiliar Quebec cases. The ap-
proach is in some ways comparable to that adopted in the Ca-
nadian Abridgment but is more comprehensive. Case summaries
are often provided along with histories of the sections. Offences
are broken down into their essential elements and analyzed within
that context. The text often does not speak with a neutral voice:
opinions are expressed and justified. It is very much a commentary
on the law as Well as a digest of it, and it is a major work that
deserves a larger readership.
Stanley A. Cohen*
17 Droit pdnal canadien, 2e ed. (1974), vols. I-III, Lagarde (ed.).
* Visiting Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University.
