40:
330:
federal and provincial features of the challenged rule are of roughly equivalent importance so that neither should be ignored respecting the division of legislative powers, the decision is made that the challenged rule could be enacted by either the federal
Parliament or provincial legislature. In the language of the Privy Council, “subjects which in one aspect and for one purpose fall within sect. 92, may in another aspect and for another purpose fall within sect. 91”.
354:
contradiction is not sufficient to invoke the doctrine of paramountcy and render otherwise valid provincial legislation inoperative. Instead, there must be an actual conflict between the laws where compliance with one law will necessarily violate the other. However, any claimant seeking action under the
Securities Act will be able to successfully use only one.
329:
But if the contrast between the relative importance of the two features is not so sharp, what then? Here we come upon the double-aspect theory of interpretation, which constitutes the second way in which the courts have dealt with inevitably overlapping categories. When the court considers that the
246:
The
Divisional Court reversed. Morden J, speaking for the Court, held that the constitutional doctrine of paramountcy operates to invalidate provincial legislation if it duplicates valid federal legislation in such a way that the two provisions cannot live together and operate concurrently. If the
353:
Dickson then considered whether there was a conflict between the two Acts. He found that there was no conflict. The laws duplicated each other and had the same legislative objective. There is no problem with laws operating concurrently, Dickson argued. Mere duplication without actual conflict or
312:
There is, of course, no constitutional difficulty in this. The constitutional difficulty arises, however, when a statute may be characterized, as often happens, as coming within a federal as well as a provincial head of power. “To put the same point in another way, our community life — social,
242:
At first instance, Henry J in Weekly Court held the provincial provisions in question were valid and still in effect. He stated that when both a provincial and a federal statute have occupied a field, the test that gives rise to the doctrine of paramountcy is whether the two statutes can "live
313:
economic, political, and cultural — is very complex and will not fit neatly into any scheme of categories or classes without considerable overlap and ambiguity occurring. There are inevitable difficulties arising from this that we must live with so long as we have a federal constitution”
92:
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for
Ontario (1978), 86 DLR (3d) 160, 19 OR (2d) 516, affirming a judgment of the Divisional Court (1977), 78 DLR (3d) 701, 16 OR (2d) 593, which reversed a decision of Henry J. in Weekly Court (1975), 65 DLR (3d) 577, 11 OR (2d)
307:
Dickson first considered the nature of provisions relating to insider trading, and found that they could fall under either securities law or company law. As that could then fall under either federal or provincial jurisdiction, he noted:
247:
federal and provincial provisions are virtually identical, are directed to achieving the same policy, and create the same rights and obligations, the duplication attracts the doctrine of paramountcy. On appeal, the
243:
together and operate concurrently." The doctrine of paramountcy does not necessarily arise because an individual is subject to prohibition and penalty under both statutes at the same time.
363:
505:
65:
Multiple Access
Limited, by The Ontario Securities Commission v John O. McCutcheon, David K Lowry, John Craig, Fred W Gibbs and Dickson Jarvis
500:
510:
343:
347:
212:
293:, whether ss. 113 and 114 of the Ontario Act are suspended and inoperative by reason of the doctrine of paramountcy.
335:
397:
208:
141:
248:
184:
45:
476:
W.R. Lederman (1964). ""Classification of Laws and the
British North America Act". In W.R. Lederman (ed.).
481:
381:
226:
In its defence, the company argued that the provisions of the provincial Act were inoperative under the
342:. He then considered the federal Act, which he found to be valid under the federal powers relating to
39:
227:
211:, which was accepted. Two shareholders of Multiple Access applied to the Ontario courts to have the
441:
450:
17:
145:
433:
322:
216:
121:
125:
494:
297:
188:
149:
137:
129:
71:
187:
on the resolution of overlapping federal and provincial laws under the doctrine of
301:
289:
269:
114:
334:
He found that the Act was valid under the provincial authority over matters of
164:
Dickson J., joined by Laskin C.J. and
Martland, Ritchie, McIntyre and Lamer JJ.
133:
215:
commence an action against several directors and officers of the company for
300:, for the majority, held that both Acts were valid, and the doctrine of
204:
101:
Appeal allowed. The three questions should be answered by the negative.
434:"The Concurrent Operation of Federal and Provincial Laws in Canada"
230:
as it overlapped with insider trading provisions in the
364:
List of
Supreme Court of Canada cases (Laskin Court)
284:
168:
160:
155:
105:
97:
88:
80:
70:
60:
53:
32:
199:Multiple Access, a company incorporated under the
327:
310:
8:
259:These issues were before the Supreme Court:
183:is a leading constitutional decision of the
172:Estey J., joined by Beetz and Chouinard JJ.
251:agreed with the Divisional Court ruling.
478:The Courts and the Canadian Constitution
374:
29:
7:
382:SCC Case Information - Docket 15299
263:whether ss. 100.4 and 100.5 of the
394:Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon
76:1982 CanLII 1705 (SCC), 2 SCR 161
25:
400:, 2 SCR 161 (9 August 1982)
348:peace, order and good government
180:Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon
38:
33:Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon
321:using the Lederman approach of
276:whether ss. 113 and 114 of the
273:Parliament in whole or in part;
54:Hearing: November 25, 26, 1981
1:
506:Supreme Court of Canada cases
213:Ontario Securities Commission
203:made an offer to acquire the
18:Multiple Access v. McCutcheon
501:Canadian federalism case law
338:under section 92(13) of the
27:Supreme Court of Canada case
527:
511:1982 in Canadian case law
336:property and civil rights
110:
37:
209:Canadian Marconi Limited
56:Judgment: August 9, 1982
384:Supreme Court of Canada
265:Canada Corporations Act
249:Ontario Court of Appeal
232:Canada Corporations Act
201:Canada Corporations Act
185:Supreme Court of Canada
46:Supreme Court of Canada
482:McClelland and Stewart
432:W.R. Lederman (1963).
340:Constitution Act, 1867
332:
315:
221:Ontario Securities Act
317:Dickson examined the
409:R.S.C. 1970, c. C-32
228:paramountcy doctrine
418:R.S.O. 1970, c. 426
205:broadcasting assets
442:McGill Law Journal
344:trade and commerce
474:, p. 181, citing
451:McGill Law School
430:, p. 181, citing
176:
175:
16:(Redirected from
518:
486:
485:
469:
463:
462:
460:
458:
438:
425:
419:
416:
410:
407:
401:
398:1982 CanLII 1705
391:
385:
379:
325:, which states:
146:Julien Chouinard
142:William McIntyre
119:Puisne Justices:
106:Court membership
42:
30:
21:
526:
525:
521:
520:
519:
517:
516:
515:
491:
490:
489:
475:
472:Multiple Access
470:
466:
456:
454:
436:
431:
428:Multiple Access
426:
422:
417:
413:
408:
404:
392:
388:
380:
376:
372:
360:
323:judicial review
304:did not apply.
257:
240:
217:insider trading
197:
122:Ronald Martland
117:
55:
49:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
524:
522:
514:
513:
508:
503:
493:
492:
488:
487:
484:. p. 193.
464:
420:
411:
402:
386:
373:
371:
368:
367:
366:
359:
356:
319:Securities Act
295:
294:
285:
278:Securities Act
274:
256:
253:
239:
236:
196:
193:
174:
173:
170:
169:Concur/dissent
166:
165:
162:
158:
157:
153:
152:
126:Roland Ritchie
112:Chief Justice:
108:
107:
103:
102:
99:
95:
94:
90:
86:
85:
82:
78:
77:
74:
68:
67:
62:
61:Full case name
58:
57:
51:
50:
43:
35:
34:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
523:
512:
509:
507:
504:
502:
499:
498:
496:
483:
479:
473:
468:
465:
452:
448:
444:
443:
435:
429:
424:
421:
415:
412:
406:
403:
399:
395:
390:
387:
383:
378:
375:
369:
365:
362:
361:
357:
355:
351:
349:
345:
341:
337:
331:
326:
324:
320:
314:
309:
305:
303:
299:
292:
291:
286:
283:
279:
275:
272:
271:
266:
262:
261:
260:
255:Supreme Court
254:
252:
250:
244:
237:
235:
233:
229:
224:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
194:
192:
190:
189:double aspect
186:
182:
181:
171:
167:
163:
159:
156:Reasons given
154:
151:
150:Antonio Lamer
147:
143:
139:
138:Willard Estey
135:
131:
130:Brian Dickson
127:
123:
120:
116:
113:
109:
104:
100:
96:
91:
89:Prior history
87:
83:
79:
75:
73:
69:
66:
63:
59:
52:
48:
47:
41:
36:
31:
19:
477:
471:
467:
455:. Retrieved
446:
440:
427:
423:
414:
405:
393:
389:
377:
352:
339:
333:
328:
318:
316:
311:
306:
296:
288:
287:if both are
281:
277:
268:
264:
258:
245:
241:
238:Lower courts
231:
225:
220:
200:
198:
179:
178:
177:
118:
111:
64:
44:
480:. Toronto:
346:as well as
302:paramountcy
290:intra vires
282:ultra vires
270:ultra vires
115:Bora Laskin
495:Categories
370:References
219:under the
195:Background
134:Jean Beetz
81:Docket No.
457:5 January
453:: 185–199
298:Dickson J
72:Citations
358:See also
161:Majority
396:,
98:Ruling
84:15299
449:(3).
437:(PDF)
459:2013
280:are
267:are
93:249.
207:of
497::
445:.
439:.
350:.
234:.
223:.
191:.
148:,
144:,
140:,
136:,
132:,
128:,
124:,
461:.
447:9
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
