510
edits
Changes
→The doctrine of paramountcy
It isn't ''quite'' right to say that federal legislation "trumps" provincial legislation. It's a little more complex, and this is important because the ''Divorce Act'' and the ''Family Law Act'' cover so many of the same subjects. Really, what the legal test says is that in order for the federal legislation to win, there must be a "functional incompatibility" between the provincial legislation and the federal legislation, so that it is impossible to comply with both statutes and that complying with one statute would frustrate the purpose of the other statute. Here's what the Supreme Court of Canada said in a 2007 case called ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1rmr1 Canadian Western Bank v Alberta]'', at paragraphs 69 and 75:
<blockquote>"According to the doctrine of federal paramountcy, when the operational effects of provincial legislation are incompatible with federal legislation, the federal legislation must prevail and the provincial legislation is rendered inoperative to the extent of the incompatibility. The doctrine applies not only to cases in which the provincial legislature has legislated pursuant to its ancillary power to trench on an area of federal jurisdiction, but also to situations in which the provincial legislature acts within its primary powers, and Parliament pursuant to its ancillary powers. <br>
...[t]he onus is on the party relying on the doctrine of federal paramountcy to demonstrate that the federal and provincial laws are in fact incompatible by establishing either that it is impossible to comply with both laws or that to apply the provincial law would frustrate the purpose of the federal law."</blockquote>