FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By in Nov 2012

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 10,317 times | Saved to 486 briefcases

Case References

Style of causeRatio

Canadian Western Bank v The Queen in Right of Alberta, [2007] 2 SCR 3

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

Ross v Registrar of Motor Vehicles et al., [1975] 1 SCR 5

There will be no conflict when you can abide by one law of one jurisdiction without violating the other law of the other jurisdiction.

Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon, [1982] 2 SCR 161

Double aspect doctrine: Laws with substantially similar purpose regulating the same matter can both be valid.
** There is double aspect to insider trading (the federal aspect deals with company law; the provincial aspect deals with securities regulation)

If there is no repugnancy (express contradiction), then the provincial legislation remains operable
** Mere duplication without actual conflict or contradiction is not sufficient to invoke the doctrine of paramountcy and render otherwise valid provincial legislation invalid
** Mere duplication in itself does not equal conflict

Bank of Montreal v Hall, [1990] 1 SCR 121

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)

Canadian Western Bank v The Queen in Right of Alberta, [2007] 2 SCR 3

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

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges v Saskatchewan, 2005 SCC 13

Questions to ask for conflict: - Look at both test to establish conflict (even if fails on 1 first):
1. Can a person simultaneously comply with both acts? (impossibility of dual compliance test) (Multiple Access)
2. Does the provincial act frustrate Parliaments purpose in enacting their act? (frustration of legislative intent test) (BMO)

Citizen Insurance Company v Parsons (1881), 7 AC 96 (PC)

The authority of the dominion to legislate for the regulation of trade and commerce does not comprehend the power of the province to regulate by legislation the contracts of a particular business or trade.

Interpretive Framework from Parsons
**“…it is the duty of the Courts…to ascertain in what degree, and to what extent, authority to deal with matters falling within these classes of subjects exists in each legislature, and to define in the particular case before them the limits of their respective powers.”
**Does the statute fall to a provincial head of power?
***If so, could it also fall to a federal head of power?
***If so, and provincial and federal exercises of power conflict, the federal Act would be dominant or “paramount”

McKay v The Queen, (1965) SCR 798

When the province does not have jurisdiction for the legislation in question, the court may "read down" the legislation.
** Here, the province did not have jurisdiction to regulate the display of federal election signs; but by-law could still apply to all other signs.


This decision tree outlines the Canadian constitutional law "paramountcy" and "interjurisdictional immunity (IJI)" tests to determine the operability and applicability of a particular piece of legislation. There are two distinct legal tests grouped together here.

The cases referred to include: Canadian Western Bank v The Queen in Right of Alberta; Ross v Registrar of Motor Vehicles; Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon; Bank of Montreal v Hall; Rothmans, Benson & Hedges v Saskatchewan; Citizen Insurance Company v Parsons; McKay v The Queen.




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.