Thomson Irvine

In an insolvency appeal, the Court considered whether provincial farm-protection preconditions conflicted with the national receivership regime under the federal bankruptcy statute.

The majority held there was no operational conflict and no frustration of federal purpose, emphasizing a restrained paramountcy analysis and cooperative federalism.

The purpose of the federal receivership provision was read narrowly as creating a national appointment mechanism, not guaranteeing a uniformly rapid timeline free from provincial conditions.

The provincial 150-day process and mediation framework therefore remained operative when a secured creditor sought appointment of a receiver over farm-related assets.

A dissent would have found the provincial scheme frustrated federal objectives of timeliness, flexibility, and emergency responsiveness.

The respondent tobacco company sought a declaration that s. 6 of the Saskatchewan Tobacco Control Act, which bans the display of tobacco products in premises where persons under 18 are permitted, was inoperative due to the federal paramountcy doctrine.

The respondent argued it conflicted with s. 30 of the federal Tobacco Act, which allows retailers to display tobacco products.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provincial legislation was not inoperative.

The Court found no operational conflict, as retailers could comply with both by either not admitting minors or not displaying the products, and the provincial law did not frustrate the federal legislative purpose of addressing a national public health problem.

The Attorney General for Saskatchewan brought a motion seeking an order directing the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority Inc. to serve it with an application for leave to appeal.

The Court held that under the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Constitutional Questions Act, the Attorney General is considered a party and must be served.

The motion was granted with costs.

The accused was charged with storing firearms and ammunition in a careless manner contrary to s. 86(2) of the Criminal Code.

He challenged the constitutionality of the provision, arguing it violated s. 7 of the Charter by allowing conviction based on mere negligence.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 86(2) does not violate s. 7, as the objective standard of a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person satisfies the minimum fault requirement for this offence.

The appeal was allowed and the stay of proceedings was lifted.

The Attorney General for Saskatchewan appealed a decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal which found that proposed changes to provincial electoral boundaries infringed the right to vote under s. 3 of the Charter.

The impugned legislation imposed a strict quota of urban and rural ridings and required urban ridings to coincide with municipal boundaries, resulting in variances in voter populations.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the purpose of s. 3 is not absolute equality of voting power, but effective representation.

The Court found that the deviations from voter parity were justified by factors such as geography, community interests, and population growth patterns, and therefore did not violate s. 3.