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