Skip to main content
Article
Constitutional law - paramountcy - duplication and express contradiction - Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon
University of British Columbia Law Review (1983)
  • Eric Colvin, University of Saskatchewan
Abstract
[extract] All federal systems must deal with the problem of legal conflict in areas where the jurisdictions of the central and regional legislatures overlap. The standard response is a rule assigning priority to the laws of the central legislature. Such a rule has been inferred from the congressional supremacy clause in Article VI of the American Constitution and is made express in section 109 of the Australian Constitution. There is no similar provision for Canada in the Constitution Act, 1867. This is perhaps because sections 91 and 92 attempt to divide legislative power according to a basic design of exclusive spheres of responsibility. Despite this, areas of overlapping jurisdiction have been judicially recognized and it was early accepted that resulting conflicts between federal and provincial law would be resolved in favour of the federal side. In addition, some of the exceptional grants of concurrent jurisdiction in the Constitution Act, 1867, have been accompanied by express provisions to the same effect.
Keywords
  • constitutional law,
  • paramountcy,
  • legal jurisdiction,
  • Canada,
  • Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon
Publication Date
January 1, 1983
Citation Information
Eric Colvin. "Constitutional law - paramountcy - duplication and express contradiction - Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon" University of British Columbia Law Review (1983)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/eric_colvin/37/