Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Pith and substance [1] 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 (be it provincial or federal) has encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of another level of government.
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. [1]
Ward v Canada (AG) [1] is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on federalism.The Court re-articulated the "pith and substance analysis and upheld the regulations prohibiting sale of "blueback" seals for the valid purpose of "curtailing commercial hunting of young seals to preserve the fisheries as an economic resource".
If it is, in pith and substance, provincial, ancillary effects on the rights of individuals outside the province are irrelevant [nb 43] but; Where it is, in pith and substance, legislation in relation to the rights of individuals outside the province, it will be ultra vires the province [nb 5] [nb 44] In The Queen (Man.) v.
The Double aspect doctrine in Canadian constitutional law is one that allows for laws to be created by both provincial and federal governments in relation to the same subject matter.
the pith and substance of the provincial law and the federal law should be examined to ensure that they are both validly enacted laws and to determine the nature of the overlap, if any, between them. the applicability of the provincial law to the federal undertaking or matter in question must be resolved with reference to the doctrine of ...
the environment. An Environmental Health Officer (EHO) at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted an investigation to find the missing mercury in the chlor-alkali industry [7]. The path of the investigation An employee of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggested that the
Paramountcy is relevant where there is conflicting federal and provincial legislation. As Justice Major explained in Rothmans: [1]. The doctrine of federal legislative paramountcy dictates that where there is an inconsistency between validly enacted but overlapping provincial and federal legislation, the provincial legislation is inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency.