29:
335:
Pigeon held that the policy intended to be implemented was a control of the imports of a given commodity to foster the development and utilization of
Canadian oil resources. Under the circumstances, the interference with local trade cannot be termed an unwarranted invasion of provincial jurisdiction.
234:
In 1970, the
National Energy Board Act was amended to extend its scope to cover oil, and regulations were issued to provide that an importer of gasoline could not transport it across a line, generally coinciding with the Ontario-Quebec border, without a license from the Board. Upon being refused a
279:
I reach the conclusion then that, on the authorities to which my attention has been drawn, once goods are imported into Canada, they ordinarily fall, from the point of view of trade regulation, into the same category as goods produced in Canada and are regulated by
Parliament or the legislatures
330:
It is clear, therefore, that the existence and extent of provincial regulatory authority over specific trades within the province is not the sole criterion to be considered in deciding whether a federal regulation affecting such a trade is invalid. On the contrary, it is no objection when the
385:... It is now settled law that once the analysis concludes that federal legislation is valid under the head of power relating to the general regulation of commerce, that legislation may regulate all transactions, including those characterized as intraprovincial .... In fact, as
393:
It is important to notice that the general branch of the trade and commerce power authorizes the regulation of intraprovincial trade. Indeed, there would be no need for a general branch of trade and commerce if it did not exceed beyond interprovincial and international
322:(4.) There can be a domain in which provincial and Dominion legislation may overlap, in which case neither legislation will be ultra vires if the field is clear, but if the field is not clear and the two legislations meet the Dominion legislation must prevail: …
343:
stated that the authority of
Parliament to regulate importation of goods was validly exercised in this case, in including as part of the regulatory scheme a provision restricting the area of distribution of the goods within Canada by their importer.
359:
power, in order to allow regulatory schemes with respect to interprovincial and international trade. However, it can also be viewed as allowing such regulation only with respect to imported goods, and not to those that are domestically produced.
235:
new license because of failure to comply with terms attached to previous licenses, Caloil obtained a declaration from the
Exchequer Court stating that the regulatory scheme was unconstitutional within the framework previously determined in the
331:
impugned enactment is an integral part of a scheme for the regulation of international or interprovincial trade, a purpose that is clearly outside provincial jurisdiction and within the exclusive federal field of action.
244:
The regulations were subsequently revised to provide that imports of gasoline could be shipped into an area of Canada specified in the conditions of a license granted by the Board. Caloil returned to the court for a
95:
The existence and extent of provincial regulatory authority over specific trades within the province is not the sole criterion to be considered in deciding whether a federal regulation affecting such a trade is
457:
589:
280:
depending on whether they find their way into paths leading to destinations inside or outside the province where they are situate.
698:
693:
620:
355:
has been seen as representing a greater willingness by the
Supreme Court to regulate local transactions under the federal
640:
703:
595:
356:
674:
449:
George Walkem
Shannon and others v Lower Mainland Dairy Products Board and the Attorney General of British Columbia
389:, that is logically the only possible conclusion from the existence of the second branch of the power under 91(2):
226:. The Court upheld a federal law prohibiting the transport or sale of imported oil in a certain region of Ontario.
415:
520:
512:
502:
462:
575:
444:
373:
309:
250:
308:
noted that
Dumoulin J's comments with respect to the nature of jurisdictions had to be read with what
74:
314:
217:
419:
213:
34:
507:
364:
222:
363:
More recent jurisprudence, however, suggests that such a view may be too restrictive. As the
305:
254:
159:
140:
8:
237:
368:
246:
670:
616:
452:
293:
163:
109:
60:
28:
194:
120:
458:
Home Oil
Distributors Ltd. et al. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia et al.
198:
179:
171:
167:
136:
128:
124:
116:
647:
687:
269:
Dumoulin J dismissed the action and ruled that the legislative scheme was
340:
300:
We are all of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.
271:
190:
175:
144:
132:
608:
386:
455:, AC 708 (27 July 1938) (on appeal from British Columbia),
615:. Vol. 1 (5th ed.). Toronto: Carswell. p. 20-16.
572:
Québec (Procureure générale) c. Canada (Procureure générale)
326:
Citing more recent SCC jurisprudence, he then declared:
641:"The Consumer Perspective of Trade and Commerce Powers"
590:
General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. City
National Leasing
284:Caloil appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
275:federal jurisdiction. As he noted in his judgment,
646:. Public Interest Advocacy Centre. Archived from
287:
685:
607:
73:APPEAL from a judgment of Dumoulin J. of the
54:Caloil Inc. v. The Attorney General of Canada
296:immediately announced the Court's decision:
212:is a leading constitutional decision of the
482:
480:
555:
553:
412:Caloil Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada
264:
578: at par. 523–526 (31 March 2011)
477:
664:
559:
686:
550:
474:as quoted in SCC judgment, at p. 549
371:in proceedings parallel to those in
669:. Toronto: Irwin Law. p. 610.
418:, SCR 543 (24 November 1970),
13:
638:
43:Hearing: November 23 and 24, 1970
14:
715:
596:Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc.
515:, SCR 804 (4 October 1960),
505:, SCR 776 (4 October 1960),
447:, SCR 626 (7 October 1958),
367:observed in answering provincial
667:Constitutional Law (2nd Edition)
27:
632:
601:
581:
565:
523:, SCR 823 (4 October 1960)
304:In subsequent written reasons,
538:
526:
492:
468:
465:, SCR 444 (23 April 1940)
434:
425:
405:
288:At the Supreme Court of Canada
1:
699:Supreme Court of Canada cases
399:
229:
694:Canadian federalism case law
613:Constitutional Law of Canada
16:Supreme Court of Canada case
7:
381:as one of the authorities:
374:Reference re Securities Act
339:In his concurring opinion,
292:At the end of the hearing,
220:under section 91(2) of the
45:Judgment: November 24, 1970
10:
720:
251:Attorney General of Canada
704:1971 in Canadian case law
665:Monahan, Patrick (2002).
347:
186:
155:
150:
105:
100:
94:
89:
81:
75:Exchequer Court of Canada
69:
59:
49:
42:
26:
21:
315:Fish Canneries Reference
249:for avoidance, with the
218:Trade and Commerce power
209:Caloil Inc v Canada (AG)
22:Caloil Inc v Canada (AG)
639:Lo, Janet (June 2009).
214:Supreme Court of Canada
35:Supreme Court of Canada
453:[1938] UKPC 54
397:
396:
365:Quebec Court of Appeal
333:
324:
302:
282:
265:At the Exchequer Court
223:Constitution Act, 1867
517:Stephens v. The Queen
391:
383:
328:
320:
298:
277:
255:National Energy Board
253:as defendant and the
141:Louis-Philippe Pigeon
508:O'Grady v. Sparling
369:reference questions
238:Margarine Reference
499:Smith v. The Queen
357:trade and commerce
312:had stated in the
247:declaratory action
622:978-0-7798-1337-7
205:
204:
85:Appeal dismissed.
711:
680:
661:
659:
658:
652:
645:
627:
626:
605:
599:
585:
579:
569:
563:
557:
548:
542:
536:
530:
524:
496:
490:
484:
475:
472:
466:
441:Murphy v. C.P.R.
438:
432:
429:
423:
409:
114:Puisne Justices:
101:Court membership
31:
19:
18:
719:
718:
714:
713:
712:
710:
709:
708:
684:
683:
677:
656:
654:
650:
643:
635:
630:
623:
606:
602:
586:
582:
570:
566:
558:
551:
543:
539:
531:
527:
497:
493:
485:
478:
473:
469:
439:
435:
430:
426:
416:1970 CanLII 194
410:
406:
402:
350:
290:
267:
232:
121:Ronald Martland
112:
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
717:
707:
706:
701:
696:
682:
681:
675:
662:
634:
631:
629:
628:
621:
600:
587:together with
580:
564:
549:
537:
525:
521:1960 CanLII 71
513:1960 CanLII 70
503:1960 CanLII 12
491:
476:
467:
463:1940 CanLII 46
433:
424:
403:
401:
398:
349:
346:
289:
286:
266:
263:
231:
228:
203:
202:
188:
184:
183:
157:
153:
152:
148:
147:
137:Wishart Spence
129:Roland Ritchie
125:Wilfred Judson
117:Douglas Abbott
110:GĂ©rald Fauteux
107:Chief Justice:
103:
102:
98:
97:
92:
91:
87:
86:
83:
79:
78:
71:
67:
66:
63:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
716:
705:
702:
700:
697:
695:
692:
691:
689:
678:
672:
668:
663:
653:on 2013-06-30
649:
642:
637:
636:
624:
618:
614:
610:
609:Peter W. Hogg
604:
598:
597:
592:
591:
584:
577:
576:2011 QCCA 591
573:
568:
561:
556:
554:
547:, pp. 552–553
546:
541:
534:
529:
522:
518:
514:
510:
509:
504:
500:
495:
488:
483:
481:
471:
464:
460:
459:
454:
450:
446:
445:1958 CanLII 1
442:
437:
428:
421:
420:Supreme Court
417:
413:
408:
404:
395:
390:
388:
387:Peter W. Hogg
382:
380:
376:
375:
370:
366:
361:
358:
354:
345:
342:
337:
332:
327:
323:
319:
317:
316:
311:
307:
301:
297:
295:
285:
281:
276:
274:
273:
262:
260:
256:
252:
248:
242:
240:
239:
227:
225:
224:
219:
215:
211:
210:
200:
196:
192:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
158:
154:
151:Reasons given
149:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
115:
111:
108:
104:
99:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
70:Prior history
68:
64:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
676:1-55221052-9
666:
655:. Retrieved
648:the original
633:Bibliography
612:
603:
594:
588:
583:
571:
567:
560:Monahan 2002
544:
540:
532:
528:
516:
506:
498:
494:
486:
470:
456:
448:
440:
436:
427:
411:
407:
392:
384:
378:
372:
362:
352:
351:
338:
334:
329:
325:
321:
313:
303:
299:
291:
283:
278:
270:
268:
259:mis-en-cause
258:
243:
236:
233:
221:
208:
207:
206:
193:, joined by
162:, joined by
113:
106:
53:
33:
310:Lord Tomlin
272:intra vires
187:Concurrence
145:Bora Laskin
133:Emmett Hall
77:, ExCR 535
688:Categories
657:2013-01-07
400:References
294:Fauteux CJ
230:Background
164:Fauteux CJ
65:S.C.R. 543
562:, Ch. 9.B
377:, citing
61:Citations
611:(2007).
535:, p. 551
489:, p. 550
431:ExCR 512
422:(Canada)
341:Laskin J
306:Pigeon J
195:Martland
191:Laskin J
160:Pigeon J
156:Majority
96:invalid.
574:,
519:,
511:,
501:,
461:,
443:,
414:,
216:on the
172:Ritchie
90:Holding
673:
619:
545:Caloil
533:Caloil
487:Caloil
394:trade.
379:Caloil
353:Caloil
348:Impact
199:Judson
180:Spence
168:Abbott
82:Ruling
651:(PDF)
644:(PDF)
451:
671:ISBN
617:ISBN
593:and
197:and
178:and
176:Hall
166:and
257:as
690::
552:^
479:^
318::
261:.
241:.
201:JJ
182:JJ
174:,
170:,
143:,
139:,
135:,
131:,
127:,
123:,
119:,
679:.
660:.
625:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
