|
In Canadian constitutional law, the doctrine of paramountcy establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and federal laws, the federal law will prevail and the provincial law will be inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal law. Unlike interjurisdictional immunity, which is concerned with the scope of the federal power, paramountcy deals with the way in which that power is exercised. ==Nature of the doctrine== Paramountcy is relevant where there is conflicting federal and provincial legislation. As Major J explained in ''Rothmans'': Claims in paramountcy may arise from two different forms of conflict:〔''COPA'', par. 64〕 : * Operational conflict between federal and provincial laws, such that dual compliance is impossible. : * Where dual compliance is possible, but the provincial law is incompatible with the purpose of federal legislation, thus frustrating a federal purpose. To determine whether the impugned legislation frustrates a federal purpose, it is necessary to consider the regulatory framework that governs the matter in question. The party seeking to invoke the doctrine of federal paramountcy bears the burden of proof. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Paramountcy (Canada)」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|