Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 NOVEMBER 2015

Wrestling With Paramountcy In Restructuring Or Insolvency

Gowling WLG
Gowling WLG
Contributor
Gowling WLG

Gowling WLG

The firm The firm’s lawyers speak English, French, Russian and Ukrainian. The firm’s client base...

View firm profile
Explore more from Gowling WLG

What do a car crash in Alberta, a delinquent farm mortgage in Saskatchewan and an unpaid highway toll ticket in Ontario have in common?

CanadaInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring

What do a car crash in Alberta, a delinquent farm mortgage in Saskatchewan and an unpaid highway toll ticket in Ontario have in common?

They all ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court issued reasons for judgment in the following three cases, each of which wrestled with the constitutional concept of paramountcy in the context of a bankruptcy or insolvency: 407 ETR Concession Co. v. Canada (Superintendent of Bankruptcy), 2015 SCC 52; Alberta (Attorney General) v. Moloney, 2015 SCC 51; and Saskatchewan (Attorney General) v. Lemare Lake Logging Ltd., 2015 SCC 53.

Paramountcy

If valid federal legislation and valid provincial legislation "clash", then under the constitutional doctrine of paramountcy the federal legislation prevails. Essentially the tie goes to the Feds.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from