No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 March 2016
This article traces the evolution of the Canadian approach to private international law from Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye to Castillo v. Castillo and identifies four major flaws that have significant implications for both private international law and Canadian federalism: (1) ambiguous and inconsistent terminology that undermines the conceptual foundation of this approach while obscuring its potential impact; (2) the Court’s use of American conflict of laws jurisprudence to reinforce a deferential orientation in Canadian private international law; (3) the Court’s vision of the international order and understanding of public international law, which has begun to affect the Canadian federal system; and (4) the model of the Canadian Constitution employed in these cases, which may have broad negative consequences for provincial interests. The article argues that these flaws are remediable, that both constitutional text and recent opinions contain resources useful to this end, and that, however the Court decides to address these problems, subsequent iterations of the Canadian approach to private international law should emphasize clarity, consistency, and comprehensiveness.
Cet article trace l’évolution de l’approche canadienne au droit international privé à partir de Morguard Investments Ltd. c. De Savoye jusqu’à Castillo v. Castillo. Il cerne quatre défauts majeurs qui ont des conséquences significatifs tant pour le droit international privé que pour le fédéralisme canadien, dont: (1) l’emploi d’une terminologie ambiguë et contradictoire qui mine les fondements conceptuels de cette approche tout en déguisant son impact potentiel; (2) l’utilisation par la Cour de la jurisprudence américaine en matière de droit international privé pour justifier une orientation déférentielle en droit international privé canadien; (3) la vision de la Cour de l’ordre international et sa compréhension du droit international public, qui ont des effets sur le système fédéral canadien; et (4) le modèle de la constitution canadienne révélée dans ces cas, qui pourrait avoir de sérieux effets négatifs sur les intérêts provinciaux. L’article affirme que ces défauts peuvent être rémédiés, que les textes constitutionnels et des opinions récentes révèlent des ressources utiles à cette fin, et que, peu importe la façon dont la Cour s’y prend pour adresser ces problèmes, l’approche future du Canada au droit international privé doit avant tout être claire, uniforme et compréhensive.
1 Tolofson v. Jensen, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022 at para. 68 [Tolofson].
2 Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077 [Morguard].
3 Edinger, Elizabeth, “The Constitutionalization of the Conflict of Laws” (1995) 25 Can. Bus. L.J. 38.Google Scholar
4 Amchem Products Inc. v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897 at para. 55 [Amchem].
5 See, for example, Braintech v. Kostiuk (1999), 171 D.L.R. (4th) 46; and Muscutt v. Courcelles (2002), 213 D.L.R. (4th) 577.
6 Constitution of the United States of America, Article IV. 1.
7 Swan, John, “The Canadian Constitution, Federalism and the Conflict of Laws” (1985) 63(2) Can. Bar Rev. 271 Google Scholar; Patrick Glenn, H., “Foreign Judgments, the Common Law and the Constitution: De Savoye v. Morguard Investments Ltd.” (1992) 37 McGill L.J. 537 Google Scholar; Swan, John, “Federalism and the Conflict of Laws: The Curious Position of the Supreme Court of Canada” (1995) 46 South Carolina L. Rev. 923 Google Scholar; Edinger, supra note 3; Walker, Janet, The Constitution of Canada and the Conflict of Laws (Ph.d. dissertation, Worcester College, Cambridge University, 2001)Google Scholar; Wai, Robert, “In the Name of the International: The Supreme Court of Canada and the Internationalist Transformation of Canadian Private International Law” (2001) 39 Can. Y.B. Int’l L. 117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Edinger, Elizabeth and Black, Vaughan, “A New Approach to Extraterritoriality: Unifund Assurance Co. v. ICBC ” (2003) 40(2) Can. Bus. L.J. 161 Google Scholar; Pitel, Stephen G. A., “Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Where Morguard Stands after Beals ” (2003) 40(2) Can. Bus. L.J. 189 Google Scholar; Goodman, Joy and Tapis, Jeffrey A., “ Beals v. Saldhana and the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Canada” (2003) 40(2) Can. Bus. L.J. 227 Google Scholar; and Hogg, Peter, The Constitutional Law of Canada (Scarborough: Carswell, 2004), Chapter 13.Google Scholar
8 Wai, supra note 7 at 117.
9 Ibid. at 207.
10 Ibid. at 143.
11 See, for example, the Court’s recent jurisprudence on the principled approach to the common law rule against hearsay evidence. R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; and R. v. Starr, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144.
12 Compare with Wai, supra note 7 at 206.
13 See, for example, Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 494 [Global Securities], which is discussed later in this article; Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. ABC Containerline N.V. (Trustees of), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 907 [Holt Cargo] (the properly engaged in rem maritime jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Canada is not disrupted by foreign bankruptcy proceedings or orders of a Canadian bankruptcy court. Under Canadian bankruptcy law, the interest of foreign trustees in bankruptcy is subject to the valid interests of secured creditors). Antwerp Bulkcarriers, N.V. (Re), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 951 [Antwerp Bulkcarriers] (the properly engaged in rem maritime jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Canada is not disrupted by foreign bankruptcy proceedings or orders of a Canadian bankruptcy court).
14 Morguard, supra note 2 at para. 2–4.
15 Ibid. at para. 45–50; Moran v. Pyle National (Can.) Ltd., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 393 at para. 28; and R v. Libman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178 at para. 74 [Libman].
16 Morguard, supra note 2 at para. 52
17 Amchem, supra note 4.
18 Ibid. at paras. 3–10.
19 Ibid. at para. 25.
20 Ibid. at paras. 25–26.
21 Ibid. at para. 37.
22 Ibid. at para. 33.
23 Ibid. at para. 37.
24 Ibid. at paras. 28 and 67.
25 Ibid. at para. 58.
26 Ibid. at para. 59.
27 Ibid. at para. 60.
28 Ibid. at para. 55. SNI Aérospatiale v. Lee Kui Jak, [1987] 3 All E.R. 510.
29 Amchem, supra note 4 at para. 55.
30 Hunt v. T & N plc, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 289 [Hunt].
31 Ibid. at paras. 5—14. Business Concerns Records Act, R.S.Q., c. D–12,
32 Hunt, supra note 30 at paras. 61–67.
33 Ibid. at para. 59.
34 Tolofson, supra note 1.
35 See, for example, Swan, supra note 7; and Herbert, Jason, “The Conflict of Laws andJudicial Perspectives on Federalism: A Principled Defence of Tolofson v. Jensen ” (1998) 56 U.T. Faculty L. Rev. 3.Google Scholar
36 Tolofson, supra note 1 at paras. 6–8.
37 Ibid. at paras. 12–16.
38 Ibid. at para. 43. In brief concurring reasons, Sopinka J. and Major J. preserved the possibility of an exception to this rule in inter-provincial cases where application of the lex loci delicti would be unjust. However, La Forest J. for the majority of the Court recognized a need for such discretion only in certain international disputes. See ibid. at paras. 50 and 102–3.
39 Ibid. at para. 71.
40 Ibid. at para. 86.
41 Ibid. at para. 39.
42 Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63 [Unifund]; and British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 473 [Imperial Tobacco].
43 Spar Aerospace Ltd. v. American Mobile Satellite Corp., [2002] 4 S.C.R. 205 [Spar Aerospace].
44 See, for example, Global Securities, supra note 13; Holt Cargo, supra note 13; and Antwerp Bulkcarriers, supra note 13.
45 Spar Aerospace, supra note 43 at paras. 3–7.
46 Ibid. at paras. 9–10. Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 3148.
47 Spar Aerospace, supra note 43 at para. 44.
48 Ibid. at paras. 50, 51 , 54, and 63.
49 Ibid. at para. 64.
50 Ibid. at paras. 51–54.
51 Unifund, supra note 42.
52 Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8,
53 Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 231,
54 Unifund, supra note 42 at paras. 4–15.
55 Ibid. at paras. 19–20.
56 Ibid. at paras. 82 and 91.
57 Ibid. at paras. 104 and 106.
58 Ibid. at para. 71.
59 See, for example, ibid. at para. 56.
60 Ibid. at paras. 122 , 134, and 139.
61 Ibid. at paras. 110 and 127.
62 Ibid. at para. 125.
63 Beals v. Saldhana, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416 [Beals].
64 Ibid. at paras. 5–11.
65 See, for example, Pitel, supra note 7; and Goodman and Talpis, supra note 7.
66 Beals, supra note 63 at paras. 37 and 40.
67 Ibid. at para. 86.
68 Ibid. at paras. 134, 183, and 252.
69 Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers in Canada v. Canadian Association of Internet Providers, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427 [SOCAN].
70 Libman, supra note 15.
71 Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42.
72 SOCAN, supra note 69 at paras. 3–5.
73 Ibid. at para. 6.
74 Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. 2000, c. 30.
75 Imperial Tobacco, supra note 42 at para. 15, citing JTI-Macdonald Corp. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2000 BCSC 312.
76 Ibid. at para. 6, citing section 2 of the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, supra note 74.
77 Ibid. at para. 36.
78 Ibid. at paras. 32, 37, and 38
79 Castillo v. Castillo, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 870 [Castillo]. Limitations Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-12.
80 Castillo, supra note 79 at para. 1.
81 Section 12 of the Alberta Limitations Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L–12, which reads: “The limitations law of the Province shall be applied whenever a remedial order is sought in this Province, notwithstanding that, in accordance with conflict of law rules, the claim will be adjudicated under the substantive law of another jurisdiction.”
82 Castillo, supra note 79 at para. 10.
83 Ibid. at paras. 5 and 6. The Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3, section 92(14).
84 Castillo, supra note 79 at paras. 31 , 34, and 35.
85 Ibid. at paras. 32 and 45.
86 Ibid. at para. 27.
87 Ibid. at para. 36.
88 Ibid. at para. 32.
89 Ibid. at para. 35.
90 See text accompanying notes 90–91, 109, and 133–35 in this article.
91 Morguard, supra note 2 at para. 29 [emphasis added], and para. 31, citing Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895) at 163–64.
92 Morguard, supra note 2 at para. 32
93 See generally the discussion later in this article.
94 Morguard, supra note 2 at paras. 30, 32, and 35.
95 Ibid. at para. 35.
96 Ibid. at para. 32.
97 Ibid. at para. 48.
98 See text accompanying notes 109 and 133–35 in this article.
99 Hunt, supra note 30 at para. 56.
100 Ibid. at para. 41.
101 Ibid. at para. 57.
102 Ibid. at para. 59.
103 Ibid. at para. 56.
104 See, for example, Edinger, supra note 3 at 53.
105 Hunt, supra note 30 at para. 57.
106 Ibid. at para. 58.
107 Ibid.
108 Ibid. at para. 65 [footnote omitted]. Business Concerns Records Act, R.S.Q., c. D–12.
109 Hunt, supra note 30 at para. 61.
110 Tolofson, supra note 1 at para. 57.
111 Spar Aerospace, supra note 43 at paras. 14 and 15.
112 Ibid. at para. 21. LeBel J. describes the three principles of comity, order, and fairness as being “at the heart of the private international legal order.”
113 Ibid. at para. 17.
114 Ibid. at para. 23.
115 Ibid. at para. 14.
116 Ibid. at para. 23.
117 Ibid. at paras. 17 and 23.
118 Ibid. at para. 56.
119 Ibid. at para. 57.
120 Ibid. at para. 62.
121 Ibid. at para. 63.
122 Tolofson, supra note 1 at para. 37.
123 Morguard, supra note 2 at para. 33.
124 Spar Aerospace, supra note 43 at para. 50.
125 Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 125.
126 Hunt, supra note 30 at para. 65. See also text accompanying note 108 in this article.
127 Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 71.
128 Ibid. at para. 28.
129 Ibid. at para. 56.
130 Ibid. at para. 68.
131 Ibid.
132 Ibid. at para. 73.
133 See text accompanying notes 98 and 109 in this article.
134 Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 74 [emphasis added].
135 See, for example, the discussion later in this article.
136 Beals, supra note 63 at paras. 20, 27, and 29.
137 Ibid. at para. 40.
138 Ibid. at para. 52.
139 See, for example, Morguard, supra note 2 at para. 32; and Tolofson, supra note 1 at para. 57.
140 Beals, supra note 63 at para. 21.
141 Morguard, supra note 2 at paras. 51–52; and Hunt, supra note 30 at paras. 56 and 58–59.
142 SOCAN, supra note 69 at para. 60.
143 Spar Aerospace, supra note 43 at paras. 50 and 54.
144 See, for example, Imperial Tobacco, supra note 42 at paras. 25, 27, and 35.
145 Ibid. at para. 35, citing Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 63.
146 Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 63 [emphasis added].
147 Re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 297 at para. 45 [Churchill Falls]; Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 51; and Imperial Tobacco, supra note 42 at para. 26.
148 Castillo, supra note 79 at paras. 5, 6, and 8.
149 Ibid. at para. 5; and Tolofson, supra note 1 at para. 86.
150 Castillo, supra note 79 at para. 5.
151 Ibid. at paras. 32 and 45.
152 Ibid. at para. 32; and Tolofson, supra note 1 at para 57.
153 Hunt, supra note 30 at para. 59.
154 Ibid. at para. 56.
155 Ibid. at para. 41.
156 Ibid. at para. 57.
157 Ibid. at para. 56.
158 Imperial Tobacco, supra note 42 at para. 27, citing Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 56.
159 Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 81.
160 Morguard, supra note 2 at para. 29, citing Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895).
161 Amchem, supra note 4 at para. 65; and Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877).
162 Amchem, supra note 4 at para. 65. International Shoe Co. v. Washington 326 U.S. 310 (1945) [International Shoe]; and Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) [Helicopteros Nacionales].
163 Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977) [Shaffer].
164 Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 61.
165 Ibid. at para. 75.
166 See, for example, Shaffer, supra note 163; and Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin, 495 U.S. 604 (1990).
167 Morguard, supra note 2 at paras. 39–41.
168 Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 74.
169 International Shoe, supra note 162.
170 See, for example, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980).
171 Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 74.
172 Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302 (1981) at 320 [footnote omitted] [Allstate].
173 Morguard, supra note 2 at paras. 39–41.
174 Tolofson, supra note 1 at paras. 53–55.
175 Babcock v. Jackson, 240 N.Y.S.2d 743 (N.Y. 1963) at 747–50 [Babcock].
176 Neumeier v. Keuhner, 335 N.Y.S.2d. 64 (N.Y.C.A. 1972) [Neumeier]; and Schultz v. Boy Scouts of America, 491 N.Y.S.2d 90 (N.Y.C.A. 1985) [Schultz].
177 See, for example, Babcock, supra note 175; Neumeier, supra note 176; Schultz, supra note 176. In contrast, pursuant to the “proper law” approach created by Robert A. Leflar and mentioned, but not adopted, by the New York Court of Appeals in Babcock, when competing jurisdictions have equal interests in applying their laws to a case, the forum court would break the tie by selecting the law that would produce, in the court’s opinion, the more desirable substantive result. Leflar, Robert A., American Conflicts Law, 4th edition (1986)Google Scholar at sections 9 and 11, cited in Hay, Peter et al., Conflict of Laws: Cases and Materials, 11th edition (New York: Foundation Press, 2000) at 518.Google Scholar
178 Tolofson, supra note 1 at para. 54.
179 Swan, , “Federalism and the Conflict of Laws: The Curious Position of the Supreme Court of Canada,” supra note 7 at 948–56.AMBIGUOUS (4712 citations)Google Scholar
180 See, for example, Babcock, supra note 175; Allstate, supra note 172 at 317, n. 22.
181 Tolofson, supra note 1 at para. 57.
182 Castillo, supra note 79 at para. 50.
183 Fall v. Eastin, 215 U.S. 1 (1909).
184 Allstate, supra note 172 at 308.
185 Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U.S. 408 (1955); Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 at 424 (1979); and Allstate, supra note 172 at 308, n. 10.
186 See, for example, Allstate, supra note 172 (compare the reasoning and the conclusions of the plurality, concurrence, and dissent, which employed the Due Process Clause, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, contacts, and governmental interests to varying effect).
187 Hunt, supra note 30 at para. 56, citing Morguard, supra note 2 at para. 39.
188 Tolofson, supra note 1 at para. 83.
189 Hunt, supra note 30 at para. 61. See also the discussion later in this article.
190 See the discussion later in this article.
191 Morguard, supra note 2 at para. 34.
192 Ibid. at para. 31.
193 Ibid. at para. 33.
194 Ibid.
195 See, for example, ibid. at para. 30.
196 Hunt, supra note 30 at para. 53.
197 Ibid. at para. 54 [emphasis added] [footnotes omitted], citing Morguard, supra note 2 at 1099.
198 Tolofson, supra note 1 at para. 36.
199 Ibid. at paras. 37 and 43.
200 Ibid. at para. 37.
201 See text accompanying notes 242–65 in this article.
202 Tolofson, supra note 1 at para. 44.
203 Ibid.
204 Ibid. at para. 57. See also text accompanying note 110 in this article.
205 Spar Aerospace, supra note 43 at para. 51 [emphasis added].
206 Ibid. at paras. 53 and 54.
207 Morguard, supra note 2 at para. 35.
208 Beals, supra note 63 at paras. 25 and 29.
209 Ibid. at para. 25; and Tolofson, supra note 1 at paras. 44 and 57. See also text accompanying notes 108 and 110.
210 Ibid. at paras. 134 and 187.
211 Ibid. at paras. 188–90, citing Morguard, supra note 2 at 1100.
212 Beals, supra note 63 at paras. 183 and 196.
213 Ibid. at para. 196.
214 Ibid. at para. 195.
215 Ibid. at para. 193–95. Compare the majority position (ibid. at para. 60–62).
216 SOCAN, supra note 69 at para. 56.
217 Ibid. at para. 79.
218 Ibid. at paras. 52 and 62.
219 Ibid. at para. 52.
220 Ibid. at para. 54.
221 See Global Securities, supra note 13.
222 Churchill Falls, supra note 147 at para. 52.
223 SOCAN, supra note 69 at 54, citing Tolofson, supra note 1 at 1051.
224 Ibid. at para. 57, citing Morguard, supra note 2 at 1097.
225 Ibid. at para. 55.
226 Ibid. at para. 60.
227 Ibid. at para. 58, citing Libman, supra note 15 at para. 74.
228 Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 82.
229 SOCAN, supra note 69 at para. 60.
230 Ibid. at para. 57.
231 See text accompanying notes 297–308 in this article.
232 SOCAN, supra note 69 at para. 60.
233 Ibid. at para. 55.
234 Libman, supra note 15 at paras. 2–5.
235 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, section 423(1)(d).
236 Libman, supra note 15 at paras. 11 and 74.
237 Ibid. at para. 74.
238 Ibid. at para. 76.
239 Libman, supra note 15 at para. 11; and SOCAN, supra note 69 at para. 56.
240 Libman, supra note 15 at para. 74; and SOCAN, supra note 69 at para. 60, citing Tolofson, supra note 1 at para. 37.
241 Libman, supra note 15 at para. 76; and SOCAN, supra note 69 at para. 60.
242 Libman, supra note 15 at paras. 23–33; Morguard, supra note 2 at paras. 12–20; and Tolofson, supra note 1 at paras. 24–29.
243 Libman, supra note 15 at paras. 37, 63, and 77; Morguard, supra note 2 at paras. 34–35; and Tolofson, supra note 1 at para. 40.
244 Libman, supra note 15 at para. 74; Morguard, supra note 2 at para. 45–47; and Tolofson, supra note 1 at para. 41.
245 See text accompanying notes 8–12 in this article.
246 See text accompanying notes 199–201 in this article.
247 Libman, supra note 15 at para. 78.
248 SOCAN, supra note 69 at para. 60, citing Tolofson, supra note 1 at 1049.
249 In the paragraph of Tolofson from which Binnie J. excerpted, La Forest J. wrote: “On the international plane, the relevant underlying reality is the territorial limits of law under the international legal order. The underlying postulate of public international law is that generally each state has jurisdiction to make and apply law within its territorial limit.” Tolofson, supra note 1 at para. 37.
250 SOCAN, supra note 69 at para. 60 [emphasis added].
251 Morguard, supra note 2 at paras. 29, 32, and 35.
252 Tolofson, supra note 1 at para. 57.
253 Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 71; and SOCAN, supra note 69 at para. 54, citing Tolofson, supra note 1 at para. 44.
254 See, for example, Tolofson, supra note 1 at para. 44. See also text accompanying notes 202–3 in this article.
255 Tolofson, supra note 1 at para. 37.
256 Libman, supra note 15 at para. 65.
257 Ibid. at para. 71.
258 Ibid. at para. 76.
259 Ibid. at para. 77.
260 SOCAN, supra note 69 at para. 135.
261 Ibid. at para. 147.
262 Hunt, supra note 30 at para. 56.
263 Imperial Tobacco, supra note 42 at para. 36, citing Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 51; and SOCAN, supra note 69 at para. 60.
264 Castillo, supra note 79 at para. 27 [emphasis added].
265 Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 60.
266 Morguard, supra note 2 at paras. 34–36.
267 Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, section 6.
268 Morguard, supra note 2 at paras. 36–37.
269 Ibid.
270 Ibid. at para. 39.
271 Hunt, supra note 30 at para. 54, citing Morguard, supra note 2 at para. 36.
272 Ibid. at para. 56.
273 Ibid. at paras. 47–50.
274 Ibid. at para. 65.
275 Ibid. [citations omitted].
276 See, for example, R. v. Butler [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; and MacKay v. R [1965] S.C.R. 798 [MacKay].
277 Hunt, supra note 30 at paras. 26–29.
278 Ibid. at paras. 32 and 36.
279 Ibid. at para. 46; and Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3 at s. 101.
280 Hunt, supra note 30 at paras. 42, 45, and 46. See also Walker, supra note 7 at 85–87.
281 Ibid. See also discussion later in this article.
282 Tolofson, supra note 1 at para. 38.
283 Ibid. at para. 51.
284 Ibid. at para. 68, citing Wilson, and Gaudron, JJ. in Breavington v. Godleman (1988), 80 A.L.R. 362 (H.C.) at 379.Google Scholar
285 Ibid. at para. 70.
286 See, for example, Allstate, supra note 172; and Babcock, supra note 175.
287 Tolofson, supra note 1 at paras. 57–58.
288 Ibid.
289 Spar Aerospace, supra note 43 at paras. 51, 53, and 54 [emphasis added].
290 Edinger and Black, supra note 7.
291 Unifund, supra note 42 at paras. 51–56.
292 Ibid. at paras. 58 and 80.
293 Ibid. at para. 81.
294 Edinger and Black, supra note 7 at 176.
295 Ibid. at 176–78.
296 See text accompanying notes 108 and 273–76 in this article.
297 Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 67.
298 Ibid. at para. 65 [emphasis added].
299 Ibid. at para. 71.
300 Ibid. at para. 51. Royal Bank of Canada v. The King, [1913] A.C. 283 [Royal Bank].
301 Commission de la Sante et de la Securite du Travail v. Bell Canada, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 749 at paras. 28, 199, and 313 [Bell #2].
302 Churchill Falls, supra note 147 at para. 35. Apart from federally incorporated companies, the Court has invoked interjurisdictional immunity to protect federal authority over matters as widely varied as federal works and undertakings, federal elections, “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians,” and has suggested, but not yet held, that it may shield all exclusive federal powers. See, for example, Commission du Salaire Minimum v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada, [1966] S.C.R. 767 at paras. 19 and 36; McKay, supra note 276 at paras. 20–25; Cardinal v. Attorney-General of Alberta, [ 1974] S.C.R. 695; Kruger and Manuel v. R., [ 1978] 1 S.C.R. 104; Ordon Estate v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437 at para. 81; and Paul v. British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 585 at para. 15
303 See, for example, Bell #2, supra note 301 at paras. 310–35, and text accompanying note 299 in this article.
304 Ladore v. Bennett, [1939] A.C. 468 [Ladore].
305 Churchill Falls, supra note 147 at para. 51.
306 Unifund, supra note 42 at paras. 63–64.
307 Ibid. at para. 66.
308 Friends oftheOldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3 at para. 99.
309 Unifund, supra note 42 at paras. 63, 66, and 68–72.
310 Churchill Falls, supra note 147 at para. 45; and Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 51.
311 Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 74.
312 Spar Aerospace, supra note 43 at para. 53 [emphasis added]; and Beals, supra note 63 at paras. 30 and 165 [emphasis added].
313 Unifund, supra note 42 at paras. 58–60.
314 Ibid. at para. 71; and SOCAN, supra note 69 at paras. 54–57.
315 SOCAN, supra note 69 at para. 57.
316 Ibid. at para. 60.
317 Hodge v. R. (1883), 9 A.C. 117 (PC); and AG Ontario v. AG Canada (The Local Prohibition Reference) [1896] A.C. 348 (PC).
318 Imperial Tobacco, supra note 42 at para. 36.
319 Ibid. at para. 27.
320 Ibid. at para. 27 and 36.
321 Ibid. at para. 36.
322 Ibid. at para. 35, citing Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 63.
323 See text accompanying notes 180–90 in this article.
324 Imperial Tobacco, supra note 42 at para. 27, citing Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 51.
325 SOCAN, supra note 69 at para. 60. See also text accompanying notes 250–55 in this article.
326 Imperial Tobacco, supra note 42 at para. 35, citing Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 63.
327 Churchill Falls, supra note 147 at para. 55.
328 Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 67.
329 Ibid. at para. 63.
330 Ibid. at para. 65. See also text accompanying note 298 in this article.
331 Tolofson, supra note 1 at paras. 79–87.
332 Castillo, supra note 79 at paras. 2 and 5.
333 Ibid. at paras. 6 and 9.
334 Ibid. at para. 4.
335 Ibid. at para. 5 [emphasis in original].
336 Ibid.
337 Ibid. at paras. 34 and 35.
338 Ibid. at paras. 46, 50, and 52.
339 See ibid. at para. 45; and Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 58.
340 Castillo, supra note 79 at para. 50.
341 Ibid. at para. 51.
342 Imperial Tobacco, supra note 42 at para. 36.
343 Castillo, supra note 79 at paras. 27 and 39.
344 Ibid. at para. 32 [emphasis added].
345 Imperial Tobacco, supra note 42 at paras. 26 and 27. See also text accompanying notes 318–20 in this article.
346 Castillo, supra note 79 at para. 46; and Unifund, supra note 42 at para. 51.
347 Castillo, supra note 79 at para. 36.
348 Reference re Remuneration ofJudges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3 at para. 95. See also para. 97, in which the majority offered an “alternative explanation” of Morguard, supra note 2, and Hunt, supra note 30, that relies on the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867 (“the Court was merely giving effect to the ‘[d]esire’ of the founding provinces ‘to be federally united into One Do-minion’”). However, the Court did not cite to this provision in either Morguard or Hunt and has not relied on that provision as a source of the various principles, factors, requirements, and imperatives it has invoked in the cases considered herein. Further, this alternative explanation begs the same question that was raised by the Court’s original rhetoric: what does becoming “federally united into One Dominion” entail? See text accompanying notes 271–72 in this article.
349 See, for example, Cameron, David and Simeon, Richard, “Ontario in Confederation: The Not-So-Friendly Giant,” in White, Graham, ed., The Government and Politics of Ontario, 5th edition (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 158 at 161–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robinson, Ian and Simeon, Richard, “The Dynamics of Canadian Federalism,” in Bickerton, James and Gagnon, Alain-G., eds., Canadian Politics, 3rd edition (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1999), 239 at 245–46Google Scholar; and Tully, James, Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) at 30–41 and 140–45.Google Scholar
350 For a descriptive account of the judicial role in incremental constitutional adjustment and maintenance in American constitutional practice, see Strauss, David A., “Common Law Constitutional Interpretation” (1996) 63 U. Chi. L. Rev. 877.10.2307/1600246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
351 See, for example, Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010 at paras. 109–11 and 186; Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 at paras. 97–101; and Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Ministerof Forests), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511 at paras. 11, 36, and 39–51.
352 See text accompanying notes 266–70 in this article.
353 See, for example, Reference re Secession of Quebec, supra note 351 at paras. 49–60; and Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), supra note 348 at paras. 10, 83, and 92–109.
354 Imperial Tobacco, supra note 42 at para. 66.