8/13/2019 NCA Constitution Law Chapter PARAMOUNTCY

1/3

PARAMOUNTCY

When 2 lawsare enacted by same legislative body, later law impliedly repeal

the earlier one.

In Federal system, when 2 laws enacted by different legislative bodies,doctrine of paramontcy applies:

1) Each law valid (Validity of law)

(Validity can be checed on !ederal "rondor C#arter "rond.)

!) Inconsistent with each other

"efinition of Inconsistency:

1) $f broad definition, most of provincial laws will defeat.

!) $f narrow definition, provincial laws will #et space to s$rvive.

%) E&press 'ontradiction (one law e&pressly as citiens to do the opposite to

the other law)

E&press 'ontradiction

1) Impossibility of d$al compliance. (Impossible to obey both laws)

CA%&M & D Farm V. Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation (1999) : *nder

federal act plaintiff obtained 1!+ day stay proceedin#s a#ainst the foreclos$re of

the property, "$rin# the stay period corporation obtained order from the co$rt

$nder the provincial Family Farm rotection -ct for the foreclos$re of the

property. When 1!+ days stay period #ets over, corporation demands possession

of the property. .'. held the foreclos$re invalid.

!) Fr$stration of Federal $rpose

CA%&Law ociet! o" #.C. V. Mangat ($%%1) : case re#ardin# the proceedin#s

before the Immi#ration and /ef$#e 0oard. *nder Federal Immi#ration -ct, party

co$ld present nonlawyer and $nder rovincial 0ritish 'ol$mbias 2e#alrofession -ct, prohibit the nonlawyers from practicin# law. .'. acnowled#ed

that no do$bt party can obey the stricter law, so that both laws can be followed.

0$t by obeyin# the stricter, p$rpose of federal law (to mae the process

ine&pensive and easily accessible to the people) will be fr$strated.

3e#ative Implication

8/13/2019 NCA Constitution Law Chapter PARAMOUNTCY

2/3

1) 'overin# the field ()

a) Follow the stricter law

Where the federal parliament has enacted a law, does this abstain a province

from enactin# the law on the same4

When provincial law does not contradict the federal law, b$t it is addition or

s$pplement to the provincial law, will the provincial law be inoperative4

What if provincial law is the e&actly same with Federal 2aw4

Canadian Cortsconfined the definition of paramo$ntcy to s$ch a narrow view

that it re'ects t#e covering t#e field(

CA%&) 'rad! V. parling (19%) *nder Federal 'riminal 'ode made an

offence to drive a motor vehicle reclessly and $nder provincial law made it an

offence to drive carelessly (Witho$t d$e care and attention). .'. $pheld that two

laws are not e&pressly contradictin# each other, beca$se by followin# the stricter

standards (provincial law) person can obey the both laws.

In 'rad!(19%) * tep+en,(19%*) mit+(19%) and -o,, (19$) case .'.

made it clear that no space for 'overin# the field aspect (3e#ative Implication) in

the 'anadian 'onstit$tion 2aw.

!) E&press e&tension of aramo$ntcy

ection 55 of Federal Indian -ct provides that provincial laws are inapplicable toIndians $pon the matters covered this act. 6his provision claims the doctrine of

paramo$ntcy by renderin# inoperative provincial laws $pon the same matter

covered $nder Indian -ct. *nder the Federalism r$les e&press federal

paramo$ntcy is considered to be valid. 6here is no reason why it sho$ld not be

valid.

7verlap and d$plication

1) 'onstit$tional i#nificance

"$plication is not a test of inconsistency. 6here is no reason why d$plicationsho$ld be a case of inconsistency, once It was decided in cases 189+s, namely,

7rady, mith, tephens and ;ann that there is no space in the constit$tion for

coverin# the field or ne#ative implication. ;any times provincial law is merely

d$plicate of federal law, beca$se the s$spension of provincial law can create a

#ap in provincial scheme of re#$lation, which wo$ld have to be filled by federal

8/13/2019 NCA Constitution Law Chapter PARAMOUNTCY

3/3

law. -nd the sit$ation seems to be $ntidiness, waste and conf$sion as

d$plication.

7nce it is determined that d$plication is not a test of paramo$ntcy, there is

obvio$sly no point is searchin# for the minor differences between the similar

laws.

!) "o$ble 'riminal 2iability

6he e&istence of overlappin# and d$plication of penal provision raises the

possibility that a person may be liable to convict $nder both provincial and federal

laws.

ection 11(h) of 'harter of /i#hts and vario$s other provision of criminal

proced$re prevent do$ble