Conflict of Laws: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "Category:Legal Principles ==See Also:== * Doctrine of Paramountcy") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==See Also:== | ==See Also:== | ||
* [[Doctrine of Paramountcy]] | * [[Doctrine of Paramountcy]] | ||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/gv5rm Canada Post Corporation v. Hamilton (City), 2016 ONCA 767 (CanLII)]== | |||
[25] Third, the application judge characterized the subject matter of the By-Law as in pith and substance the control of the location of CMBs, which he concluded is “ultra vires the authority of the City, even though it is within an aspect, i.e. roads, that the City has jurisdiction.” The application judge’s conclusion on vires was influenced by his view that the By-Law was adopted as a means to stop the transition to CMBs: “[t]he by-law was purposely created by councillors with the avowed intention of stopping the transition of home delivery to CMBs, an intention expressed in a by-law which essentially takes over [Canada Post’s] decision making in choosing a business model.” | |||
[45] The Supreme Court has recently clarified its jurisprudence on what is required for a conflict: [http://canlii.ca/t/gm22l Alberta (Attorney General) v. Moloney, 2015 SCC 51, (2015) 3 S.C.R. 327, at paras. 17-29]. It summarized when a conflict will occur, at para. 29: | |||
::[I]f the operation of the provincial law has the effect of making it impossible to comply with the federal law, or if it is technically possible to comply with both laws, but the operation of the provincial law still has the effect of frustrating Parliament’s purpose, there is a conflict. | |||
Revision as of 03:35, 3 March 2020
See Also:
Canada Post Corporation v. Hamilton (City), 2016 ONCA 767 (CanLII)
[25] Third, the application judge characterized the subject matter of the By-Law as in pith and substance the control of the location of CMBs, which he concluded is “ultra vires the authority of the City, even though it is within an aspect, i.e. roads, that the City has jurisdiction.” The application judge’s conclusion on vires was influenced by his view that the By-Law was adopted as a means to stop the transition to CMBs: “[t]he by-law was purposely created by councillors with the avowed intention of stopping the transition of home delivery to CMBs, an intention expressed in a by-law which essentially takes over [Canada Post’s] decision making in choosing a business model.”
[45] The Supreme Court has recently clarified its jurisprudence on what is required for a conflict: Alberta (Attorney General) v. Moloney, 2015 SCC 51, (2015) 3 S.C.R. 327, at paras. 17-29. It summarized when a conflict will occur, at para. 29:
- [I]f the operation of the provincial law has the effect of making it impossible to comply with the federal law, or if it is technically possible to comply with both laws, but the operation of the provincial law still has the effect of frustrating Parliament’s purpose, there is a conflict.
