FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 5,524 times | Saved to 389 briefcases
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges v Saskatchewan, 2005 SCC 13


Fed Tobacco Act prohibited the promotion of tobacco products – Sask adopted the Tobacco Control Act which bans all advertising


Is Sask legislation sufficiently inconsistent with Fed leg so as to render it inoperative pursuant to the doctrine of fed legislative paramountcy?


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)


Doctrine of fed legislative paramountcy dictates that where there is an inconsistency between validly enacted but overlapping prov and fed legislation, the prov legislation is inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency

*Impossibility of dual compliance is not the sole mark of inconsistency (conflict) – prov legislation that displaces or frustrates Parl legislative purpose is also inconsistent (conflicts) for the purpose of the doctrine.

Retailers can comply w/ prov by not promoting tobacco, or baring access to the building and not let anyone under 19 come in


No inconsistency between the acts – dual compliance is possible and no frustration

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.