General Motors v. City National Leasing
| General Motors of Canada Ltd v City National Leasing | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Hearing: May 17, 18, 1988 Judgment: April 20, 1989 |
|
| Full case name | General Motors of Canada Limited v City National Leasing |
| Citations | 1989 CanLII 133 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 641 |
| Docket No. | 19724 |
| Prior history | APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal, (1986), 28 DLR (4th) 158, allowing in part an appeal from a judgment of Rosenberg J, (1984), 12 DLR (4th) 273. |
| Ruling | Appeal dismissed; both constitutional questions should be answered in the affirmative. |
| Court Membership | |
|
Chief Justice: Brian Dickson Puisne Justices: Jean Beetz, William McIntyre, Antonio Lamer, Bertha Wilson, Gerald Le Dain, Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka |
|
| Reasons given | |
| Unanimous reasons by | Dickson CJ |
| Laws Applied | |
| Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23 | |
General Motors of Canada Ltd v City National Leasing is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the scope of the Trade and Commerce power of the Constitution Act, 1867 as well as the interpretation of the Ancillary doctrine.
From 1970 through 1980, General Motors (GM) sold vehicles to both City National Leasing (CNL) and to CNL's competitors. It was discovered that GM, through General Motors Acceptance Corporation, was giving CNL's competitor a better interest rate than CNL. CNL contended that this was a practice of price discrimination contrary to s. 34(1)(a) of the Combines Investigation Act, giving it a cause for action under s. 31.1 of the Act. It sued GM for lost profits, related interest, and breach of contract for damages arising after March 1980.
In its defence, GM argued that:
At trial, Rosenberg J accepted GM's first argument, and advised counsel that in view of this finding there was no need to direct argument toward the ultra vires point, the constitutional issue being academic. He did, though, present his views on the arguments that had been raised as to constitutionality. Citing several authorities, he held that the right of a private individual to sue is not truly necessary for the Combines Investigation Act to be effective, and, accordingly, s. 31.1 is ultra vires the Parliament of Canada. He also agreed with GM's third argument, stating that the section was not retrospective, thus not applying to transactions occurring prior to 1976.
The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed appeal in part. In dealing with the three issues at hand, it declared:
At the request of all counsel, it dealt with the issue of the validity of s. 31.1, and declared that, on the basis of contemporary jurisprudence at the Federal Court of Appeal, the section was constitutionally valid.
Leave was granted by the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal, and the case was heard in conjunction with an appeal from the corresponding case from the Federal Court of Appeal.
...
Wikipedia