Banking regulated under 91(15), so it is a fed power. Banks sell insurance products. Parsons establishes insurance industry falls to prov jurisdiction
Appropriate standard for IJI is impairment, rather than affect
**It must be more than merely affects – it is when the adverse impact of a law adopted by one level of gov increases it severity from “affecting” to “impairing” (w/o necessarily sterilizing or paralyzing) that the “core” competence of the other level of gov is placed in jeopardy
Concerns with IJI:
*In theory IJI applies to both prov and fed – but has in past normally protected fed – this creates an unfairness
*This isn’t how we deal with federalism in the modern era – modern era favours more expansive overlapping gov, not such exclusivity
*Application – it is difficult to define what it at core of fed head of power – so it is hard to predict.
Where IJI is available, we must consider the level of the intrusion on the “core” of the power of the other level of gov which would trigger its application.
When can you rely on IJI:
*Where there is a precedent for doing so
*Have to determine what is at the core, and use IJI when provision touches on the vital/core of power
*Can protect prov jurisdiction, but should be restrained to only protect areas where there is precedence (there isn’t must precedence on this)
No conflict between the laws – insurance is not at the core of what banks do
Go to pith and substance analysis, then establish if necessary to go to paramountcy (don’t lead with IJI if there is no precedence for it)