Multiple Access v. McCutcheon
| Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Hearing: November 25, 26, 1981 Judgment: August 9, 1982 |
|
| Full case name | Multiple Access Limited, by The Ontario Securities Commission v John O. McCutcheon, David K Lowry, John Craig, Fred W Gibbs and Dickson Jarvis |
| Citations | 1982 CanLII 1705 (SCC), [1982] 2 SCR 161 |
| Docket No. | 15299 |
| Prior history | APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario (1978), 86 DLR (3d) 160, 19 OR (2d) 516, affirming a judgment of the Divisional Court (1977), 78 DLR (3d) 701, 16 OR (2d) 593, which reversed a decision of Henry J. in Weekly Court (1975), 65 DLR (3d) 577, 11 OR (2d) 249. |
| Ruling | Appeal allowed. The three questions should be answered by the negative. |
| Court Membership | |
|
Chief Justice: Bora Laskin Puisne Justices: Ronald Martland, Roland Ritchie, Brian Dickson, Jean Beetz, Willard Estey, William McIntyre, Julien Chouinard, Antonio Lamer |
|
| Reasons given | |
| Majority | Dickson J., joined by Laskin C.J. and Martland, Ritchie, McIntyre and Lamer JJ. |
| Concur/dissent | Estey J., joined by Beetz and Chouinard JJ. |
Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the resolution of overlapping federal and provincial laws under the doctrine of double aspect.
Multiple Access, a company incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act made an offer to acquire the broadcasting assets of Canadian Marconi Limited, which was accepted. Two shareholders of Multiple Access applied to the Ontario courts to have the Ontario Securities Commission commence an action against several directors and officers of the company for insider trading under the Ontario Securities Act.
In its defence, the company argued that the provisions of the provincial Act were inoperative under the paramountcy doctrine as it overlapped with insider trading provisions in the Canada Corporations Act.
At first instance, Henry J in Weekly Court held the provincial provisions in question were valid and still in effect. He stated that when a provincial and federal statute have both occupied a field the test that gives rise to the doctrine of paramountcy is whether the two statutes can “live together and operate concurrently”. The doctrine of paramountcy does not necessarily arise because an individual is subject to prohibition and penalty under both statutes at the same time.
The Divisional Court reversed. Morden J, speaking for the Court, held that the constitutional doctrine of paramountcy operates so as to invalidate provincial legislation where it duplicates valid federal legislation in such a way that the two provisions cannot live together and operate concurrently. Where the federal and provincial provisions are virtually identical, are directed to achieving the same policy and creating the same rights and obligations, the duplication attracts the doctrine of paramountcy. On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the Divisional Court ruling.
The issues before the Supreme Court were:
Dickson J, for the majority, held that both Acts were valid, and the doctrine of paramountcy did not apply.
...
Wikipedia