| Multiple Access Ltd. V. Mccutcheon |
Article Index for Multiple Access |
Shopping Mccutcheon |
Website Links For Multiple |
Information AboutMultiple Access Ltd. V. Mccutcheon |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT MULTIPLE ACCESS LTD. V. MCCUTCHEON | |
| canadian federalism case law | |
| supreme court of canada cases | |
| 1982 in law | |
| 1982 in canada | |
BACKGROUND A company incorporated under the federal '' Canada Corporations Act '' was charged with Insider Trading under the '' Ontario Securities Act ''. In its defence, the company argued that the provisions of the provincial securities Act were inoperative under the Paramountcy Doctrine as it overlapped with insider trading provisions in the federal ''Competition Act''. The issues before the Supreme Court were: # whether ss. 100.4 and 100.5 of the Canada Corporations Act are ultra vires Parliament; # whether ss. 113 and 114 of The Securities Act are ultra vires the Ontario Legistature, and # if both are intra vires, whether ss. 113 and 114 of the Ontario Act are suspended and inoperative by reason of the doctrine of paramountcy. Justice Dickson wrote for the majority and held that the Acts were valid and the doctrine of paramountcy did not apply. OPINION OF THE COURT Dickson first considered the definition of paramountcy. It first requires that each law be valid and second, that the laws be inconsistent with each other. Dickson examined the Securities Act using the Lederman Approach of Judicial Review . He found that the Act was valid under the provincial authority over matters of "property and civil rights" under section 92(13) of the ''Constitution Act, 1867''. He then considered the federal ''Competition Act'' which he found to be valid under the "trade and commerce" power of the federal government as well as the federal Peace, Order And Good Government power. Dickson then considered whether there was a conflict between the two Acts. He found that there was no conflict. The laws duplicated each other and had the same legislative objective. There is no problem with laws operating concurrently, Dickson argued. Instead, there must be an actual conflict between the laws where compliance with one law will necessarily violate the other. However, any claimant seeking action under the Securities Act will be able to successfully use only one. SEE ALSO EXTERNAL LINKS |
|
|