Quebec (AG) v Canadian Owners and Pilots Assn

Last updated
Quebec (AG) v Canadian Owners and Pilots Assn
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing: October 14, 2009
Judgment: October 15, 2010
Full case nameAttorney General of Quebec v Canadian Owners and Pilots Association
Citations 2010 SCC 39 (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 536
Docket No. 32604
Prior historyAppealed from Laferrière c. Québec (Procureur général), 2008 QCCA 427 (CanLII), 48 M.P.L.R. (4th) 26, [2008] Q.J. No. 1597 (QL), 2008 CarswellQue 14277, reversing a decision of the Superior Court, Laferrière c. Lortie 2006 QCCS 3377 (CanLII), [2006] J.Q. no 5998 (QL), 2006 CarswellQue 5622, upholding a decision of the Court of Québec, Laferrière c. Québec (Commission de protection du territoire agricole) 2002 CanLII 41590 (QC CQ), [2002] J.Q. no 4771 (QL).
Court Membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron, Marshall Rothstein, Thomas Cromwell
Reasons given
MajorityMcLachlin C.J.
DissentDeschamps J., joined by LeBel J.

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.

Supreme Court of Canada highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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.

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.

Contents

The facts

An aerodrome, registered under the federal Aeronautics Act, was constructed on land zoned as agricultural in the province of Quebec. Section 26 of the Quebec Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities (“ARPALAA”) prohibited the use of lots in a designated agricultural region for any purpose other than agriculture, subject to prior authorization by the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec.

Since the Commission’s permission was not obtained prior to constructing the aerodrome, the Commission ordered the return of the land to its original state pursuant to the ARPALAA. The Commission’s decision was challenged on the ground that aeronautics is within federal jurisdiction.

The courts below

The Administrative Tribunal of Quebec, the Court of Quebec and the Superior Court of Quebec all upheld the Commission's decision, but the Quebec Court of Appeal found that interjurisdictional immunity precluded the Commission from ordering the dismantling of the aerodrome.

Court of Quebec

The Court of Quebec is a court of first instance that has jurisdiction over civil matters, criminal and penal matters as well as over youth matters in the Province of Quebec, Canada. The court sits in administrative matters as well, and in appeal, on cases provided for by the law.

Quebec Court of Appeal court of appeal in Quebec, Canada

The Court of Appeal of Quebec is the highest judicial court in Quebec, Canada. It hears cases in Quebec City and Montreal.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

The appeal was dismissed. Interjurisdictional immunity was held to apply in the matter, under a two-part test that was stated by McLachlin CJ:

Beverley McLachlin 17th Chief Justice of Canada

Beverley Marian McLachlin, CStJ is a Canadian jurist and author who served as the 17th Chief Justice of Canada from 2000 to 2017, the first woman to hold that position and the longest serving Chief Justice in Canadian history. In her role as Chief Justice, she also simultaneously served as a Deputy of the Governor General of Canada.

[27] The first step is to determine whether the provincial law ... trenches on the protected “core” of a federal competence. If it does, the second step is to determine whether the provincial law’s effect on the exercise of the protected federal power is sufficiently serious to invoke the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity.

While ARPALAA is valid provincial legislation, it is inapplicable to the extent that it impacts the federal power over aeronautics. The federal aeronautics jurisdiction encompasses not only the regulation of the operation of aircraft and airports, but also the power to determine the location of airports and aerodromes. This power is an essential and indivisible part of aeronautics and, as such, lies within the protected core of the federal aeronautics power. [1]

In prohibiting the building of aerodromes on designated agricultural land unless prior authorization has been obtained from the Commission, the ARPALAA effectively removed the total area of the designated agricultural regions from the territory that Parliament may designate for aeronautical uses. This is not an insignificant amount of land, and much of it is strategically located. [2]

In the appeal, it had been argued by Quebec that interjurisdictional immunity did not apply where a law raises a double aspect. Although it was not necessary to decide that question, it was stated that the argument misapprehended the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity:

Double aspect is a legal doctrine in Canadian constitutional law that allows for laws to be created by both provincial and federal governments in relation to the same subject matter. Typically, the federalist system assigns subject matters of legislation to a single head of power. However, certain matters have several dimensions to them such that for one purpose the matter will fall to one head of power, while for another purpose it will fall to the other. For example, highway traffic laws fall into the property and civil rights power of the province but equally can be a criminal offence which is in the criminal law power of the federal government.

The interjurisdictional immunity analysis presumes the validity of a law and focuses exclusively on the law’s effects on the core of a federal power.... What matters, from the perspective of interjurisdictional immunity, is that the law has the effect of impairing the core of a federal competency. In those cases where the doctrine applies, it serves to protect the immunized core of federal power from any provincial impairment. [3]

The doctrine of federal paramountcy would not apply in this case. [4]

Dissent

Deschamps J declared that the only difference between the present case and Quebec (Attorney General) v. Lacombe (which was released on the same day) was that Lacombe was concerned with municipal zoning and COPA with a provincial agricultural zoning scheme. She concluded that there was no evidence of an incidental effect that would amount to an impairment of the core of the federal aeronautics power. [5]

Impact

This case, together with the concurrent case of Lacombe, has further added to the Court's jurisprudence on Canadian federalism in a significant manner. There has been discussion as to the consistency of these rulings in comparison to previous jurisprudence, [6] but the Court's tests for paramountcy and interjurisdictional immunity in COPA have been cited in subsequent constitutional jurisprudence, especially in:

See also

Related Research Articles

Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of federal systems 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.

<i>OGrady v Sparling</i>

O'Grady v Sparling was a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutionality of overlapping federal and provincial laws. The Court held that there was no conflict between federal dangerous driving offences, which only prohibited "advertent" negligence and provincial careless driving offences, which included "inadvertent" negligence. The analysis used here is also known as the paramountcy doctrine.

<i>Kirkbi AG v Ritvik Holdings Inc</i>

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.

<i>Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon</i>

Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon 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.

<i>Canadian Western Bank v Alberta</i>

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.

<i>Paul v British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission)</i>

Paul v British Columbia , 2003 SCC 55, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in administrative law and aboriginal law. The case stands for the proposition that a provincial administrative actor granted the power to determine questions of law may adjudicate matters within federal legislative competence, including s. 35 aboriginal rights matters.

<i>Quebec (AG) v Lacombe</i>

Quebec (AG) v Lacombe, 2010 SCC 38, [2010] 2 SCR 453, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the nature of the ancillary powers that arise from the doctrine of pith and substance in Canadian constitutional law.

Canadian maritime law is based on the field of "Navigation and Shipping" vested in the Parliament of Canada by virtue of s. 91(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 provides:

<i>Marine Services International Ltd v Ryan Estate</i>

Marine Services International Ltd v Ryan Estate2013 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.

<i>Bank of Montreal v Marcotte</i>

Bank of Montreal v Marcotte2014 SCC 55 is a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. Together with Amex Bank of Canada v. Adams2014 SCC 56 and Marcotte v. Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec2014 SCC 57, it represents a further development in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence on the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and paramountcy, together with significant clarifications on the law concerning class actions in the Province of Quebec, which is similar to that in operation in the common law provinces.

<i>Canada (AG) v PHS Community Services Society</i>

Canada (AG) v PHS Community Services Society2011 SCC 44, [2011] 3 SCR 134 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case dealing with the application of the criminal law and healthcare heads of power found in section 91 and section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the principles of fundamental justice in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services Society v BC Government and Service Employees Union</i>

NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services Society v BC Government and Service Employees' Union is a leading Supreme Court of Canada constitutional law case dealing with jurisdiction over labour relations in the context of federalism and Aboriginal rights.

<i>Quebec (AG) v Canada</i> (AG)

Quebec (AG) v Canada (AG)2015 SCC 14 is a Canadian constitutional law case concerning the federal government's ability to destroy information related to the Canadian long-gun registry pursuant to the federal criminal law power.

Section 92(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the administration of justice power, grants the provincial legislatures of Canada the authority to legislate on:

<i>Reference re Pan‑Canadian Securities Regulation</i>

Reference re Pan‑Canadian Securities Regulation2018 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.

References

  1. ↑ COPA, par. 34
  2. ↑ COPA, par. 48
  3. ↑ COPA, par. 57
  4. ↑ COPA, par. 63–64
  5. ↑ COPA, par. 79–92
  6. ↑ Holden Summer. "Calling for consistency after COPA and Lacombe". Archived from the original on 2011-08-17. Retrieved 2012-01-11.
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.