constitutional law 11 paramountcy
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 11 PARAMOUNTCY

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 23

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 11 PARAMOUNTCY - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 81 Views
  • Uploaded on

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 11 PARAMOUNTCY. Shigenori Matsui. 1. INTRODUCTION. What happens when a federal law and a provincial law are in conflict? The paramountcy doctrine. I THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARAMOUNTCY DOCTRINE.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 11 PARAMOUNTCY' - zona


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
introduction
INTRODUCTION

What happens when a federal law and a provincial law are in conflict?

The paramountcy doctrine

i the development of the paramountcy doctrine
I THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARAMOUNTCY DOCTRINE
  • How should the courts decide the case if both federal law and provincial law are valid and are applicable but are in conflict?
  • The U.S. Constitution has an explicit provision:
    • This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
slide4
The courts have developed the paramountcy doctrine to give priority to federal law over provincial law.
slide5
The paramountcy doctrine is applied only when both federal law and provincial law are valid and both are applicable.
  • The doctrine denies only operability.
  • The doctrine precludes operability of the provincial law only when there is a conflict with federal law.
slide6

6

  • When there is a conflict?
    • Provincial Secretary of Prince Edward Island v. Egan, [1941]
    • O’Grady v. Sparling, [1960]
slide7

7

  • Ross v. Registrar of Motor Vehicle, [1975]
slide8

8

  • Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon [1982]
slide9
Only the express contradiction will denies operability of the provincial law.
  • Impossibility of dual compliance
  • No conflict when there is roughly the same laws.
slide10

10

  • The Supreme Court came to admit inconsistency also when the provincial law frustrates the federal purpose.
    • Bank of Montreal v. Hall, [1990]
slide11

11

  • Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, [2001]
ii inconsistency
II INCONSISTENCY
  • Paramountcy doctrine
    • Impossibility of dual compliance
    • Frustration of federal purpose
slide13
The doctrine of paramountcy is triggered when there is “conflict” between a provincial law and a federal law, and this only after they have both been found valid and the provincial law found to be applicable.
  • Conflict should be considered equivalent to “inconsistency” between the statutes, and inconsistency is generally present when Parliament’s legislative purpose has been frustrated or displaced, either by making it impossible to comply with both statutes or through some other means notwithstanding the theoretical possibility of complying with both statutes.
  • Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta [2007]
slide14
A. when both the federal law and the provincial law is roughly the same…
    • Multiple Access case
slide15
Remaining questions:
    • What would happen if the accused is charged with violation of both laws based on the same conduct?
    • Is duplicate civil liability acceptable?
slide16
B. Express contradiction
    • Impossibility of dual compliance=operational conflict
    • When should the courts find express contradiction?
    • M & D Farm Ltd v. Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corp [1999]
slide17
Saskatchewan Breathalyzer case [1958]
  • 114957 Canada Ltee v. Hudson, [2001]
slide18

18

  • Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan [2005]
slide19
Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta [2007]
  • British Columbia v. Lafarge Canada [2007]
slide20

20

  • C. Frustration of the federal purpose
    • Hall case
    • Mangat case
slide21

21

  • Hudson case
  • Rothmans case
ad