 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
MacDonald v Vapor Canada Ltd, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 134 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) on the Trade and Commerce power under section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867 .
The federal Trade-marks Act provided remedies for acts or business practices that are "contrary to honest industrial or commercial usage in Canada". The constitutionality of these provisions were challenged as ultra vires of the federal government as it created civil remedy and cause of action for tort and contractual matters which is generally under the power of the provincial authority over property and civil rights. [1]
The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the provision as valid under the Trade and Commerce power.
In a unanimous decision, the SCC held that the provisions were unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Laskin, writing for the Court, found that the provisions encroached upon the province's authority over property and civil rights and could not be upheld under the trade and commerce branch. In considering the trade and commerce clause he examined the "general trade" branch of the clause first articulated in Citizen's Insurance Co. v. Parsons (1881). Laskin proposed a three-stage test for the "general trade" branch. First, there must be a "general regulatory scheme". Second, the scheme must have the "oversight of a regulatory agency", and third, the scheme must have a concern with "trade as a whole rather than a particular industry". [1]
Laskin's proposed three-stage test was later modified by General Motors v. City of National Leasing (1989) with two supplementary stages: Fourth, the scheme is of a nature that the provinces would be constitutionally incapable of enacting it; and fifth, failure to include one or more provinces or localities in the scheme would jeopardize its operation in other parts of the country. [2]
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the judicial system of Canada. It comprises nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. The Supreme Court is bijural, hearing cases from two major legal traditions and bilingual, hearing cases in both official languages of Canada.
Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of the federal system in Canada.
Pith and substance is a legal doctrine in Canadian constitutional interpretation used to determine under which head of power a given piece of legislation falls. The doctrine is primarily used when a law is challenged on the basis that one level of government has encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of another level of government.
Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.
General Motors of Canada Ltd v City National Leasing is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the scope of the Trade and Commerce power of the Constitution Act, 1867 as well as the interpretation of the Ancillary doctrine.
Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc., popularly known as the Lego Case, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court upheld the constitutionality of section 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act which prohibits the use of confusing marks, as well, on a second issue it was held that the doctrine of functionality applied to unregistered trade-marks.
Labatt Breweries of Canada Ltd v Canada (AG), 1979 CanLII 190, [1980] 1 SCR 914 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the division of powers under the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court held that the part of the federal Food and Drugs Act which prohibited the selling of "light" beer without labelling it to indicate its composition and purity was outside of the authority of the federal government to legislate.
Caloil Inc v Canada (AG) is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Trade and Commerce power under section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court upheld a federal law prohibiting the transport or sale of imported oil in a certain region of Ontario.
In Canadian constitutional law, the doctrine of paramountcy establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and federal laws, the federal law will prevail and the provincial law will be inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal law. Unlike interjurisdictional immunity, which is concerned with the scope of the federal power, paramountcy deals with the way in which that power is exercised.
R v Hydro-Québec, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court held that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, a law for the purpose of protecting the environment, constituted criminal law and was upheld as valid federal legislation.
Reference Re Agricultural Products Marketing, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1198 is a landmark constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on cooperative federalism where the Court unanimously upheld the validity of various Acts passed by the Parliament of Canada and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for establishing a national agricultural marketing scheme agreed upon by the federal and provincial governments.
Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the criminal law power, grants the Parliament of Canada the authority to legislate on:
27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.
Section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the trade and commerce power, grants the Parliament of Canada the authority to legislate on:
2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.
In Canada, the term quasi-constitutional is used for laws which remain paramount even when subsequent statutes, which contradict them, are enacted by the same legislature. This is the reverse of the normal practice, under which newer laws trump any contradictory provisions in any older statute.
In Canada, trade secrets are generally considered to include information set out, contained or embodied in, but not limited to, a formula, pattern, plan, compilation, computer program, method, technique, process, product, device or mechanism; it may be information of any sort; an idea of a scientific nature, or of a literary nature, as long as they grant an economical advantage to the business and improve its value. Additionally, there must be some element of secrecy. Matters of public knowledge or of general knowledge in an industry cannot be the subject-matter of a trade secret.
Reference Re Securities Act is a landmark opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada to a reference question posed on the extent of the ability of the Parliament of Canada to use its trade and commerce power.
Section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a provision of the Constitution of Canada relating to the entry of goods from one province into another.
Section 125 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a provision of the Constitution of Canada relating to taxation immunities of the federal and provincial governments. The section provides that the property of the provincial and federal governments are not subject to taxation.
R v Comeau, 2018 SCC 15 is a leading and controversial case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the scope of free trade between the provinces of Canada under s. 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Reference re Pan‑Canadian Securities Regulation, 2018 SCC 48 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, dealing with the Canadian doctrine of cooperative federalism and how it intersects with the power of the Parliament of Canada over trade and commerce, as well as discussing the nature of parliamentary sovereignty in Canada.
