Talk:Paramountcy (Canada)

historical view on paramountcy
This article claims that historically the doctrine was used more freely even if there was no conflict. Does anyone know the source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.76.116 (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not that it was used when there was no conflict; it's that the definition of conflict has changed.  Originally, the courts used what's called the "occupied field" approach - that if Parliament had legislated in an area, then the Provinces could not legislate in that area. (Similar to the US federal preemption approach.)  However, for the past 60 years or so, they've used a narrower definition of "operational conflict."  Paramountcy isn't triggered simply when Parliament and the Legislature have passed laws affecting the same matter.  The two laws have to be in actual conflict, so that it's impossible for the citizen to comply with both simultaneously.  This definition of conflict is a less intrusive judicial approach, as it keeps the courts from intervening except in cases where it is simply not possible for both laws to operate simultaneously.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

citations of authorities
There was a tag stating that the article didn't cite any sources in support. I've removed it, since the article cites four cases from the Supreme Court of Canada in support of its thesis. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Added in-line citations to the four SCC cases, so a bot won't re-insert the "no citations" tag.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)