PARAMOUNTCY

When 2 laws are 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 paramo ntcy applies: 1) Each law valid (Validity of law) (Validity can be chec ed on !ederal "ro nd or C#arter "ro nd.)

!) 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 citi(ens 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 non)lawyer and $nder ,rovincial 0ritish 'ol$mbia1s 2e#al ,rofession -ct, prohibit the non)lawyers from practicin# law. ..'. ac nowled#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$rpose of federal law (to ma e the process ine&pensive and easily accessible to the people) will be fr$strated. 3e#ative Implication

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 Co rts confined 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 rec lessly 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 to Indians $pon the matters covered this act. 6his provision claims the doctrine of paramo$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 "$plication is not a test of inconsistency. 6here is no reason why d$plication sho$ld be a case of inconsistency, once It was decided in cases 189+s, namely, 71:rady, .mith, .tephens and ;ann that there is no space in the constit$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

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 <eopardy. %) "o$ble 'ivil 2iability ,aramo$ntcy doctrine doesn1t apply in civil liability, ,rivy 'o$ncil has $pheld do$ble income ta&ation, sayin# that federal and provincial law may co)e&ist and be enforced witho$t clashin#. ,erson may see compensation $nder both federal and provincial, b t if once f$lly compensated $nder one law, then not allowed to see dama#es $nder the other law. Effects of Inconsistency When it is fo$nd that a federal law is inconsistent with a provincial law, the doctrine of federal paramo$ntcy re=$ires that provincial law m$st yield to the federal law. 7ther of way describin# is that provincial law is rendered inoperative to the e&tent of inconsistency. ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))