Recently, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Canada Post Corporation v Hamilton (City)[1] had an opportunity to revisit the doctrine of
federal paramountcy in the context of the most exciting of subjects: community mailboxes.
Not exact matches
John, I will do my best (non-legal opinion) to answer your probing questions on the doctrine of
paramountcy surrounding Royal Prerogative Powers and «
federal pith and substance» as this relates to the Crown
in Right of Canada (Monarchy of Canada).
The Court does acknowledge that provincial powers will continue to be subject to the doctrine of
paramountcy, such that
federal legislation will prevail
in the case of a conflict with provincial legislation (para 130).
Finding that, the Court went on to conclude that the provincial deemed trust under the PBA applies
in CCAA proceedings, subject to the doctrine of
federal paramountcy, because of the Amended Initial Order, and noting that that means that when there is a CCAA liquidation proceeding, the PPSA may determine the priorities rather than the
federal scheme under the BIA (Indalex, para 52), since analogous priorities are not set out
in the CCAA.
Aside from the inapplicability of
federal paramountcy, an additional problem is that the provincial PPSAs and pension benefits legislation are not identical
in their treatment of deemed trusts
in relation to security interests arising under the PPSAs.
That particular law of Canada sets out
federal powers that,
in some circumstances defined
in the case law, are given paramount or wholly exclusive status under the doctrines of
paramountcy and interjurisdictional immunity.
Unless the SCC strikes down the applicable Criminal Code provision
in Carter, the Bill is vulnerable to the constitutional law doctrine of
federal paramountcy.
On November 13, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) confirmed,
in a series of three decisions, that any provincial law that is operationally inconsistent with the
federal bankruptcy scheme, or that frustrates its rehabilitative purpose, is of no force and effect — but left the future of the
federal paramountcy test to be addressed further on another day.
In Lafarge (British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lafarge Canada Inc., [2007] 2 SCR 86, 2007 SCC 23) and Mangat (Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, [2001] 3 SCR 113, 2001 SCC 67) the court held that the applicability of certain provincial laws to regimes governed by
federal legislation constituted a conflict between intended purpose of the relevant
federal legislation and the provincial legislation that triggered the application of the doctrine of
paramountcy.
The doctrine of
paramountcy dictates that s. 102 of Alberta Traffic Safety Act is inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the
federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and
in particular s. 178 (2).
A statutory deemed trust under provincial legislation such as the PBA continues to apply
in federally ‑ regulated CCAA proceedings, subject to the doctrine of
federal paramountcy.
Ontario's Highway 407 Act (a debt enforcement mechanism
in favour of the private owner and operator of an open - access toll highway) conflicts with the
federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (a discharged bankrupt is released from all provable claims) ̶ it offends the doctrine of
federal paramountcy and is inoperative to the extent of the conflict.
«This time around, Mongeon comes to a different conclusion than
in White Birch, saying the
paramountcy of the
federal legislation is not relevant here because you have an argument between two creditors that has to be determined by Quebec legislation as opposed to
federal and Quebec.»
It submits she erred
in (a) concluding that Part II of the SFSA was not rendered inoperative by the doctrine of
federal paramountcy, (b) finding that 3L Cattle is not insolvent, and (c) deciding that,
in any event, it would not be just or convenient to appoint a receiver.