I opened this piece by suggesting that this was a much larger step outside of
provincial constitutional authority than Premier Horgan's efforts to stop TransMountain.
Not exact matches
That said, the vast majority of British Columbians — including one - third who currently oppose the project — say a court ruling that its
provincial government does not have the
constitutional authority to block the project would be enough to give in and allow the pipeline to be twinned.
The federal announcement was in regards to the reference question NDP Premier John Horgan's government filed with the BC Court of Appeal under the
provincial BC
Constitutional Question Act to determine whether the province has the
authority to seek permits from companies wanting to ship more bitumen through the province.
We say this because the division of powers part of the judgement (commencing at para 98) is full of all sorts of references to two levels of government (see e.g. para 141) and similar comments about «interlocking federal and
provincial schemes» that make it abundantly clear that this Court has given no thought to the space within which indigenous laws may operate within the modern
constitutional order (for recognition that the law making
authority of aboriginal peoples pre-dated the Crown's acquisition of sovereignty, was not extinguished by that acquisition of sovereignty and was not impaired by the division of legislative powers between the federal and
provincial governments in 1982 see Campbell v British Columbia (2000), 189 DLR (4th) 333 (BCSC) and Justice Deschamps in Beckman v Little Salmon / Carmacks First Nation, [2010] 3 SCR 103 at para 97).
In Canada, under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, parliament or a
provincial legislature has the
authority to repeal or modify any principles set out in case law provided that it does so in accordance with
constitutional limitations: G. Gall, The Canadian Legal System, 4th ed.
Four of the seven SCC judges reached the decision which was released July 31, while the other three declined to deal with the issue, ruling the
constitutional argument shouldn't be considered because Julie Guindon, the lawyer who launched the appeal, failed to give proper notice to federal and
provincial authorities.