Paramountcy (Canada)
Encyclopedia
In Canadian constitutional law, the doctrine of paramountcy establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and federal laws, the federal law will prevail and the provincial law will be inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal law. This model of paramountcy
is often known as "federal paramountcy."
Historically, the doctrine was interpreted very strictly. When there was any overlap between federal or provincial laws the federal law would always render the provincial law inoperative even where there was no conflict. It was over time that courts and academics began to interpret the power as only applying where conformity to one law would necessarily violate the other. The Supreme Court of Canada
adopted the latter interpretation in the decision of Smith v. The Queen. The Court held that there must be an "operational incompatibility" between the laws in order to invoke paramountcy.
The modern use of the paramountcy doctrine was articulated in Multiple Access v. McCutcheon. Both the provincial and federal governments enacted virtually identical insider trading
legislation. The Court found that statutory duplication does not invoke paramountcy as the court had the discretion to prevent double penalties. Instead, paramountcy can only be invoked when then compliance with one means the breach of the other.
A later example of this doctrine was in the decision of Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat
where the Court found an operational conflict between the provincial Law Society Act prohibiting non-lawyers from appearing in front of a judge and the Immigration Act which allowed non-lawyers to appear before the immigation tribunal.
Frustrating the Legislative Purpose
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges v. Saskatchewan expands the paramountcy doctrine to state that a "provincial enactment must not frustrate the purpose of a federal enactment, whether by making it impossible to comply with the latter or by some other means."
Paramountcy
The doctrine of paramountcy is the legal principle that reconciles contradicting or conflicting laws in a federalist state. Where both the central government and the provincial or state governments have the power to create laws in relation to the same matters, the laws of one government will be...
is often known as "federal paramountcy."
Historically, the doctrine was interpreted very strictly. When there was any overlap between federal or provincial laws the federal law would always render the provincial law inoperative even where there was no conflict. It was over time that courts and academics began to interpret the power as only applying where conformity to one law would necessarily violate the other. The Supreme Court of Canada
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
adopted the latter interpretation in the decision of Smith v. The Queen. The Court held that there must be an "operational incompatibility" between the laws in order to invoke paramountcy.
The modern use of the paramountcy doctrine was articulated in Multiple Access v. McCutcheon. Both the provincial and federal governments enacted virtually identical insider trading
Insider trading
Insider trading is the trading of a corporation's stock or other securities by individuals with potential access to non-public information about the company...
legislation. The Court found that statutory duplication does not invoke paramountcy as the court had the discretion to prevent double penalties. Instead, paramountcy can only be invoked when then compliance with one means the breach of the other.
A later example of this doctrine was in the decision of Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat
Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat
Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 113 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court held that a non-lawyer may be given the power to practice law under a federal statute even if it is contrary to a provincial legal profession legislation.-Background:The...
where the Court found an operational conflict between the provincial Law Society Act prohibiting non-lawyers from appearing in front of a judge and the Immigration Act which allowed non-lawyers to appear before the immigation tribunal.
Frustrating the Legislative Purpose
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges v. Saskatchewan expands the paramountcy doctrine to state that a "provincial enactment must not frustrate the purpose of a federal enactment, whether by making it impossible to comply with the latter or by some other means."