SCC 2005. Judicial Review, Const. Interp.
- BC's Act made a tort (more favourable evidentiary and procedural rules than normal tort- and retroactive) for which they could sue Tobacco companies for health cost incurred by tobacco exposure (breach of duty owed to BC ppl).
- Court shut down Tobac's argument that rule of law and judicial independence was violated, because judges could still evaluate law and right to a fair trial wasn't required by Const.
R v Morgentaler
1993 SCC. Pith and Substance Doctrine.
- Rumour that M making abortion clinic and perfroming abortions. Nova Scotia makes Act that prohibits certain medical services (incl abortion) to be done outside hospitals. CC removed abortion prohib in 1988. Trial Judge says Act is P&S criminal law(stopping morally-contested act).
- 92(7(hospitals), 13 (pcr), 16(lpn)); 91(27-crim); P&S analysis.
- Issue: health power or crim power?
- Onus on Crown to prove legislation grounded in prov powers since abortion is traditionally crim jurisdiction.
- Leg history says privatization: No studies done on it; privzn introduced in 3rd reading/incidental. (incl's hansard)
- Legal (rights and liabilities) and pract effects(e.g.no evidence to help case so no long term effect): prevent ppl from going to clinics for certain services
- NS's act held ultra vires.
Multiple Access v McCutcheon
1982 SCC. Double Aspect Doctrine.
- Ont's prov act and fed act had nearly identical insider-trading provisions. MA argued that securities was 91, MA was fed'ly incorporated, and that the doubling of provisions means fed's trump (paramountcy). Statute of limitations time for fed law had lapsed.
- RULE: Prov law can regulate fed'ly incorporated companies as long as it doesnt discriminate, sterlize its status/activity as a fed corp, or impair its essential powers
- RULE: if both acts are of equal importance no reason to kill one for the other.
- Ont's law held under DA doctrine
Ross v Registrar of Motor Vehicles
1975 SCC. DA aspect of case.
- Ross convicted under CC for driving impaired and judge says can only drive to and from work and advised RMV to not suspend lisence. RMV suspends lisence for 3 months. Ross argues it is inoperative. Prov said CC provision uv.
- RULE: just bc CC doesn't prohibit doesn't give it a positive lisence. Bh: crim power is only a prohibition; no entitlements. Didn't say "must drive", so it's possible to comply with both.
GM v City National Leasing
- 1989 SCC. Ancillary Doctrine.
- GM violated fed non-competition act by giving preferred pricing to CNL's competitors. Fed act gives right to civil liability action. GM argues uv bc this is under 92(13).
- IV: remedial, civil action limited to act, precedent supports feds making civil cases (and was integral component for economic regulation in the act)
Quebec v Lacombe
2010 SCC. Ancillary Doctrine.