Interjurisdictional immunity: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "Category:Legal Principles <b><u>[93] The doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity protects the “core” of a legislative head of power from impairment by the actions of...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Legal Principles]] | [[Category:Legal Principles]] | ||
<b><u>[93] The doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity protects the “core” of a legislative head of power from impairment by the actions of a government at the other level</b></u>: COPA, at para. 26. Its application involves two steps: (1) determining whether a statute or measure adopted by a government at one level trenches on the core of a power of the other government, and (2) determining whether the effect of the statute or measure on the protected power is sufficiently serious to trigger the application of the doctrine: COPA, at para 27. | <b><u>[93] The doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity protects the “core” of a legislative head of power from impairment by the actions of a government at the other level</b></u>: [http://canlii.ca/t/2cxpd COPA, at para. 26]. Its application involves two steps: (1) determining whether a statute or measure adopted by a government at one level trenches on the core of a power of the other government, and (2) determining whether the effect of the statute or measure on the protected power is sufficiently serious to trigger the application of the doctrine: [http://canlii.ca/t/2cxpd COPA, at para 27]. | ||
[94] Its application has wide-ranging consequences and as the Supreme Court recently reiterated, it should be applied “with restraint” and “in general be reserved for situations already covered by precedent”: [http://canlii.ca/t/g91dq Bank of Montreal v. Marcotte, 2014 SCC 55, (2014) 2 S.C.R. 725, at para. 63], citing [http://canlii.ca/t/1rmr1 Canadian Western Bank, at paras. 67 and 77]. | [94] Its application has wide-ranging consequences and as the Supreme Court recently reiterated, it should be applied “with restraint” and “in general be reserved for situations already covered by precedent”: [http://canlii.ca/t/g91dq Bank of Montreal v. Marcotte, 2014 SCC 55, (2014) 2 S.C.R. 725, at para. 63], citing [http://canlii.ca/t/1rmr1 Canadian Western Bank, at paras. 67 and 77]. | ||
Revision as of 03:27, 3 March 2020
[93] The doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity protects the “core” of a legislative head of power from impairment by the actions of a government at the other level: COPA, at para. 26. Its application involves two steps: (1) determining whether a statute or measure adopted by a government at one level trenches on the core of a power of the other government, and (2) determining whether the effect of the statute or measure on the protected power is sufficiently serious to trigger the application of the doctrine: COPA, at para 27.
[94] Its application has wide-ranging consequences and as the Supreme Court recently reiterated, it should be applied “with restraint” and “in general be reserved for situations already covered by precedent”: Bank of Montreal v. Marcotte, 2014 SCC 55, (2014) 2 S.C.R. 725, at para. 63, citing Canadian Western Bank, at paras. 67 and 77.
[95] I agree with the City’s submission that Canada Post has not identified any precedent recommending the application of this doctrine. It is not sufficient that the doctrine has in the past been applied to the head of power of postal services. There needs to be a closer nexus with the actual subject matter of the By-Law.
[96] As this case presents a novel situation with respect to interjurisdictional immunity, the application judge needed to identify some exceptional rationale for extending the doctrine and did not do so. Accordingly, I am of the view that the application of the doctrine in this instance is an error of law.
