FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 2,903 times | Saved to 320 briefcases
Bank of Montreal v Hall, [1990] 1 SCR 121

Facts:

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.

Issue(s):

Is there an actual conflict in operation?

Ratio:

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)

Analysis:

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

Holding:

Validity of both was established

Comments:

Broad view of conflict


Discussion

  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:
    http://mcgill1l.wikispace.....al+v.+Hall

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.