ott , ▁Mart land , ▁and ▁R itch ie ▁conc urr ing . ▁ ▁Jud son ▁held ▁that ▁“ the ▁power ▁of ▁a ▁provincial ▁legisl ature ▁to ▁en act ▁legisl ation ▁for ▁the ▁reg ulation ▁of ▁highway ▁traffic ▁is ▁und ou bt ed ”. ▁He ▁re aff ir med ▁the ▁principle ▁that ▁there ▁exists ▁a ▁" general ▁area " ▁or ▁" domain " ▁of ▁criminal ▁law . ▁Thus ▁the ▁two ▁govern ments ▁can ▁make ▁law ▁on ▁the ▁same ▁matter ▁by ▁creating ▁a ▁distinction ▁between ▁the ▁types ▁of ▁cul p ability : ▁ ▁On ▁the ▁facts , ▁Jud son ▁found ▁that ▁there ▁was ▁overlap ▁between ▁the ▁laws ▁however ▁“ there ▁is ▁no ▁conflict ▁between ▁these ▁prov isions ▁in ▁the ▁sense ▁that ▁they ▁are ▁rep ug nant ”. ▁The ▁provincial ▁law ▁extended ▁to ▁include ▁“ in ad vert ent ▁neg lig ence ” ▁as ▁well ▁as ▁regular ▁neg lig ence . ▁It ▁was ▁enough ▁that ▁“ the ▁two ▁pieces ▁of ▁legisl ation ▁differ ed ▁both ▁in ▁legisl ative ▁purpose ▁and ▁legal ▁and ▁practical ▁effect ” ▁to ▁justify ▁both ▁of ▁them . ▁ ▁D issent ▁Cart w right ▁and ▁Lock e ▁J J ., ▁in ▁diss ent , ▁held ▁that ▁there ▁is ▁no ▁possibility ▁of ▁over la pping ▁domains . ▁He ▁stated ▁that ▁the ▁leading ▁case ▁on ▁the ▁matter , ▁‘ ’ Pro vin cial ▁Secretary ▁of ▁Prince ▁Edward ▁Island ▁v . ▁E gan ’ ’ , ▁cannot ▁be ▁read ▁so ▁broad ly ▁as ▁to ▁give ▁the ▁provinces ▁un limited ▁powers ▁over ▁high ways . ▁Mat