FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 2,656 times | Saved to 312 briefcases
Bank of Montreal v Hall, [1990] 1 SCR 121


H got loans from bank and returned granted security interest in farm equipment. H defaulted on loan, and the bank pursuant to Bank Act seized the machinery. Bank did not follow procedures required a different provincial act.


Is there an actual conflict in operation?


Dual compliance will be impossible when application of the prov statute can fairly be said to frustrate Parliament legislative purpose

Conflict: can find conflict when provincial legislation frustrates the purpose of the federal legislation, AND/OR when dual compliance cannot be found (Multiple Access)


Doctrine of paramountcy will only need to be invoked in instances where it is impossible to comply with both legislative enactment's.

Focus must be on the broader question – whether operation of the provincial Act is compatible w/ the federal legislative purpose – absent this compatibility, dual compliance is impossible


Validity of both was established


Broad view of conflict


  1. tdooley 1

    This is somewhat misleading, I don’t believe the point of the case is that validity for both was established. I would not rely on the holding here.
    This is a better case brief:

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.