Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon

Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon
	Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: November 25, 26, 1981 ; Judgment: August 9, 1982
Full case name	Multiple Access Limited, by The Ontario Securities Commission v John O. McCutcheon, David K Lowry, John Craig, Fred W Gibbs and Dickson Jarvis
Citations	1982 CanLII 1705 (SCC), [1982] 2 SCR 161
Docket No.	15299
Prior history	APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario (1978), 86 DLR (3d) 160, 19 OR (2d) 516, affirming a judgment of the Divisional Court (1977), 78 DLR (3d) 701, 16 OR (2d) 593, which reversed a decision of Henry J. in Weekly Court (1975), 65 DLR (3d) 577, 11 OR (2d) 249.
Ruling	Appeal allowed. The three questions should be answered by the negative.
Court membership
	Chief Justice: Bora Laskin ; Puisne Justices: Ronald Martland, Roland Ritchie, Brian Dickson, Jean Beetz, Willard Estey, William McIntyre, Julien Chouinard, Antonio Lamer
Reasons given
Majority	Dickson J., joined by Laskin C.J. and Martland, Ritchie, McIntyre and Lamer JJ.
Concur/dissent	Estey J., joined by Beetz and Chouinard JJ.

Last updated January 09, 2021

Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon^[1] is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the resolution of overlapping federal and provincial laws under the doctrine of double aspect.

Background

Multiple Access, a company incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act^[2] made an offer to acquire the broadcasting assets of Canadian Marconi Limited, which was accepted. Two shareholders of Multiple Access applied to the Ontario courts to have the Ontario Securities Commission commence an action against several directors and officers of the company for insider trading under the Ontario Securities Act.^[3]

In its defence, the company argued that the provisions of the provincial Act were inoperative under the paramountcy doctrine as it overlapped with insider trading provisions in the Canada Corporations Act.

The courts below

At first instance, Henry J in Weekly Court held the provincial provisions in question were valid and still in effect. He stated that when a provincial and federal statute have both occupied a field the test that gives rise to the doctrine of paramountcy is whether the two statutes can “live together and operate concurrently”. The doctrine of paramountcy does not necessarily arise because an individual is subject to prohibition and penalty under both statutes at the same time.

The Divisional Court reversed. Morden J, speaking for the Court, held that the constitutional doctrine of paramountcy operates so as to invalidate provincial legislation where it duplicates valid federal legislation in such a way that the two provisions cannot live together and operate concurrently. Where the federal and provincial provisions are virtually identical, are directed to achieving the same policy and creating the same rights and obligations, the duplication attracts the doctrine of paramountcy. On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the Divisional Court ruling.

At the Supreme Court of Canada

The issues before the Supreme Court were:

whether ss. 100.4 and 100.5 of the Canada Corporations Act are ultra vires Parliament in whole or in part;
whether ss. 113 and 114 of the Securities Act are ultra vires the Legislature of Ontario in whole or in part, 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.

Dickson J, for the majority, held that both Acts were valid, and the doctrine of paramountcy did not apply.

Dickson first considered the nature of provisions relating to insider trading, and found that they could fall under either securities law or company law. As that could then fall under either federal or provincial jurisdiction, he noted:

There is, of course, no constitutional difficulty in this. The constitutional difficulty arises, however, when a statute may be characterized, as often happens, as coming within a federal as well as a provincial head of power. “To put the same point in another way, our community life — social, economic, political, and cultural — is very complex and will not fit neatly into any scheme of categories or classes without considerable overlap and ambiguity occurring. There are inevitable difficulties arising from this that we must live with so long as we have a federal constitution”^[4]

Dickson examined the Securities Act using the Lederman approach of judicial review, which states:

But if the contrast between the relative importance of the two features is not so sharp, what then? Here we come upon the double-aspect theory of interpretation, which constitutes the second way in which the courts have dealt with inevitably overlapping categories. When the court considers that the federal and provincial features of the challenged rule are of roughly equivalent importance so that neither should be ignored respecting the division of legislative powers, the decision is made that the challenged rule could be enacted by either the federal Parliament or provincial legislature. In the language of the Privy Council, “subjects which in one aspect and for one purpose fall within sect. 92, may in another aspect and for another purpose fall within sect. 91”.^[5]

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 Act, which he found to be valid under the federal powers relating to trade and commerce as well as peace, order and good government.

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. Mere duplication without actual conflict or contradiction is not sufficient to invoke the doctrine of paramountcy and render otherwise valid provincial legislation inoperative. 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.

Related Research Articles

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, often simply referred to as the Charter in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of the government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, along with the rest of the Act.

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.

Ultra vires is a Latin phrase used in law to describe an act which requires legal authority but is done without it. Its opposite, an act done under proper authority, is intra vires. Acts that are intra vires may equivalently be termed "valid", and those that are ultra vires termed "invalid".

Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia deals with the legislative inconsistency between federal and state laws and declares that valid federal laws override inconsistent State laws, to the extent of the inconsistency. Section 109 is analogous to the Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution and the Paramountcy doctrine in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence, and the jurisprudence in one jurisdictions is considered persuasive in the others.

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.

Amax Potash Ltd v Saskatchewan [1977] 2 S.C.R. 576 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada on the application and role of the Constitution of Canada.

Section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the property and civil rights power, grants the provincial legislatures of Canada the authority to legislate on:

13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.

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.

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.

Law Society of British Columbia v Mangat, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 113 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court held that a non-lawyer may be given the power to practice law under a federal statute even if it is contrary to a provincial legal profession legislation.

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.

Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (BC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court held that courts have a residual discretion to refuse to answer reference questions where there is insufficient legal content or where the court would be unable to provide a complete and accurate answer.

In Canadian Constitutional law, interjurisdictional immunity is the legal doctrine that determines which legislation arising from one level of jurisdiction may be applicable to matters covered at another level. Interjurisdictional immunity is an exception to the pith and substance doctrine, as it stipulates that there is a core to each federal subject matter that cannot be reached by provincial laws. While a provincial law that imposes a tax on banks may be ruled intra vires, as it is not within the protected core of banking, a provincial law that limits the rights of creditors to enforce their debts would strike at such a core and be ruled inapplicable.

Canadian Western Bank v Alberta [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3 is a landmark decision in Canadian constitutional law by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) relating to the division of powers between Federal and Provincial legislative bodies.

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.

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.

Quebec (AG) v Canadian Owners and Pilots Assn, 2010 SCC 39, [2010] 2 SCR 536, also referred to as Quebec v. COPA, is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada on determining the applicability of the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy in Canadian constitutional law.

Marine Services International Ltd v Ryan Estate, 2013 SCC 44 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the coexistence of Canadian maritime law with provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights, and it marks a further restriction upon the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence.

Canada (AG) v Ontario (AG)[1937] UKPC 6, [1937] A.C. 326, also known as the Labour Conventions Reference, is a landmark decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council concerning the distinct nature of federal and provincial jurisdiction in Canadian federalism.

References

↑ Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon, 1982 CanLII 1705 , [1982] 2 SCR 161(9 August 1982)
↑ R.S.C. 1970, c. C-32
↑ R.S.O. 1970, c. 426
↑ Multiple Access, p. 181, citing W.R. Lederman (1963). "The Concurrent Operation of Federal and Provincial Laws in Canada" (PDF). McGill Law Journal . McGill Law School. 9 (3): 185–199. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
↑ Multiple Access, p. 181, citing W.R. Lederman (1964). ""Classification of Laws and the British North America Act". In W.R. Lederman (ed.). The Courts and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. p. 193.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon, 1982 CanLII 1705 , [1982] 2 SCR 161(9 August 1982)

[2] R.S.C. 1970, c. C-32

[3] R.S.O. 1970, c. 426

[4] Multiple Access, p. 181, citing W.R. Lederman (1963). "The Concurrent Operation of Federal and Provincial Laws in Canada" (PDF). McGill Law Journal . McGill Law School. 9 (3): 185–199. Retrieved 5 January 2013.

[5] Multiple Access, p. 181, citing W.R. Lederman (1964). ""Classification of Laws and the British North America Act". In W.R. Lederman (ed.). The Courts and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. p. 193.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]