31:
259:
The court acknowledged the fact that the
Federal Court Act gave jurisdiction to the federal courts on matters of federal agencies. However, the act "does not apply to supersede the superintending and reforming power of the Superior Court". The federal government can create a court "for the better
275:
In the end the court held that the companies were not engaged in matters within the federal powers by creating TV programming and so the CLRB did not have jurisdiction over the dispute. Instead the superior courts had jurisdiction. The court affirmed the Court of Appeal's granting of the writ.
264:. Such a court may be given exclusive power over the application of federal laws. However, section 101 does not grant the federal government authority to remove the power of superior courts to determine the constitutionality of federal laws. The government can only create
222:(CIRB). CUPE applied to have the companies declared a single party for the purposes of a collective bargaining proceedings. The companies argued that it was impossible as some of them were not inter-provincial companies and thus were outside of federal jurisdiction.
233:
against the CIRB. The
Superior Court denied the application on grounds that they did not have jurisdiction, holding that the Federal Court Act gave the power to hear this sort of case to the
284:
The case largely established concurrent jurisdiction between statutory courts and courts of inherent jurisdiction. However, in later decisions such the jurisdiction trilogy of
202:
constitutional decision on the jurisdiction of the superior courts to hear constitutional arguments. The unanimous court found that courts of inherent jurisdiction such as the
286:
397:
225:
The CIRB found that the companies were within federal jurisdiction, and subsequently granted CUPE's application. The companies, in turn, applied to the
407:
382:
372:
412:
387:
290:, the Douglas College case, and the Tétreault-Gadoury case have seemingly reversed the ruling with little mention of the case itself.
215:
377:
219:
214:
A series of multimedia companies were involved in the production of several television shows and sold air time to sponsors. The
56:
The Canada Labour
Relations Board and the Attorney General of Canada v. Paul L'Anglais Inc. and J.P.L. Productions Inc.;
88:
402:
244:
The issue before the
Supreme Court was whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction over constitutional issues.
155:
357:
392:
349:
265:
234:
199:
36:
269:
261:
238:
116:
417:
306:
252:
The unanimous court upheld the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal. The opinion was given by
Justice
226:
203:
230:
30:
108:
353:
320:
69:
241:, the court held that the Superior Court had jurisdiction and granted the writ of evocation.
253:
159:
58:
The
Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Paul L'Anglais Inc. and J.P.L. Productions Inc.
139:
112:
366:
167:
163:
151:
143:
64:
132:
147:
187:
Laskin and Richie took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
87:
Judgments for Paul L'Anglais Inc. and J.P.L. Productions Inc. in the
260:
administration of the laws of Canada" as per section 101 of the
195:
Canada (Labour
Relations Board) v Paul L'Anglais Inc. et al.
206:
had concurrent jurisdiction to hear constitutional cases.
321:"Supreme Court of Canada - SCC Case Information - Search"
218:(CUPE) brought a claim against the companies to the
24:
Canada (Labour
Relations Board) v Paul L'Anglais Inc
178:
173:
123:
102:
94:
83:
75:
63:
51:
44:
23:
8:
319:Canada, Supreme Court of (1 January 2001).
115:'s jurisdiction to interpret and apply the
299:
20:
7:
307:SCC Case Information - Docket 16384
398:Canadian Union of Public Employees
216:Canadian Union of Public Employees
14:
220:Canada Industrial Relations Board
111:does not have the power remove a
408:Canadian administrative case law
383:Canadian constitutional case law
45:Hearing: 25 and 26 October 1982
29:
1:
373:Supreme Court of Canada cases
98:Appeals court decision upheld
413:Canadian federalism case law
287:Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario
18:Supreme Court of Canada case
434:
198:1 S.C.R. 147 is a leading
89:Court of Appeal for Quebec
388:1983 in Canadian case law
186:
128:
107:
47:Judgment: 8 February 1983
28:
378:Canadian labour case law
70:1983 1 S.C.R. 147(LEXUM)
350:Supreme Court of Canada
309:Supreme Court of Canada
266:concurrent jurisdiction
200:Supreme Court of Canada
37:Supreme Court of Canada
270:exclusive jurisdiction
262:Constitution Act, 1867
239:Quebec Court of Appeal
227:Quebec Superior Court
204:Quebec Superior Court
248:Opinion of the court
179:Unanimous reasons by
237:. On appeal to the
325:scc-csc.lexum.com
231:writ of evocation
191:
190:
425:
336:
335:
333:
331:
316:
310:
304:
254:Julien Chouinard
160:Julien Chouinard
156:William McIntyre
137:Puisne Justices:
124:Court membership
33:
21:
433:
432:
428:
427:
426:
424:
423:
422:
403:Quebec case law
363:
362:
345:
340:
339:
329:
327:
318:
317:
313:
305:
301:
296:
282:
250:
212:
135:
57:
46:
40:
19:
12:
11:
5:
431:
429:
421:
420:
415:
410:
405:
400:
395:
393:Media case law
390:
385:
380:
375:
365:
364:
361:
360:
344:
343:External links
341:
338:
337:
311:
298:
297:
295:
292:
281:
278:
249:
246:
211:
208:
189:
188:
184:
183:
180:
176:
175:
171:
170:
140:Roland Ritchie
130:Chief Justice:
126:
125:
121:
120:
113:superior court
105:
104:
100:
99:
96:
92:
91:
85:
81:
80:
77:
73:
72:
67:
61:
60:
53:
52:Full case name
49:
48:
42:
41:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
430:
419:
416:
414:
411:
409:
406:
404:
401:
399:
396:
394:
391:
389:
386:
384:
381:
379:
376:
374:
371:
370:
368:
359:
355:
351:
348:Full text of
347:
346:
342:
326:
322:
315:
312:
308:
303:
300:
293:
291:
289:
288:
279:
277:
273:
271:
267:
263:
257:
255:
247:
245:
242:
240:
236:
235:Federal Court
232:
228:
223:
221:
217:
209:
207:
205:
201:
197:
196:
185:
181:
177:
174:Reasons given
172:
169:
168:Bertha Wilson
165:
164:Antonio Lamer
161:
157:
153:
152:Willard Estey
149:
145:
144:Brian Dickson
141:
138:
134:
131:
127:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
93:
90:
86:
84:Prior history
82:
78:
74:
71:
68:
66:
62:
59:
54:
50:
43:
39:
38:
32:
27:
22:
16:
418:Jurisdiction
352:decision at
328:. Retrieved
324:
314:
302:
285:
283:
274:
268:rather than
258:
251:
243:
224:
213:
194:
193:
192:
136:
129:
117:constitution
55:
35:
15:
133:Bora Laskin
367:Categories
356: and
294:References
210:Background
148:Jean Beetz
109:Parliament
76:Docket No.
280:Aftermath
182:Chouinard
65:Citations
330:6 April
103:Holding
358:CanLII
229:for a
95:Ruling
79:16384
354:LexUM
332:2020
369::
323:.
272:.
256:.
166:,
162:,
158:,
154:,
150:,
146:,
142:,
334:.
119:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
