Canadian Western Bank et al. v. Alberta, (2003) 343 A.R. 89 (QB)

• Judge: Slatter, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 04, 2003
• Citations: (2003), 343 A.R. 89 (QB);2003 ABQB 795

Cdn. Western Bank v. Alta. (2003), 343 A.R. 89 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. OC.014

Canadian Western Bank, Bank of Montreal, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, HSBC Bank Canada, National Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Canada, The Bank of Nova Scotia and the Toronto-Dominion Bank (applicants) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Alberta (respondent) and The Alberta Insurance Council and The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc. (intervenors)

(0103-18408; 2003 ABQB 795)

Indexed As: Canadian Western Bank et al. v. Alberta

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Slatter, J.

September 22, 2003.

Summary:

The Bank Act empowered federally chartered banks to promote an "authorized type of insurance". The Alberta Insurance Act and its Regulations regulated the sale of insurance ancillary to other goods and services, requiring banks promoting insurance to obtain a "restricted insurance agent's certificate of authority" and subjecting banks to certain market standards regulations. The banks challenged the constitutionality of those portions of the Insurance Act that would permit the province to regulate federally chartered banks. The banks submitted that the Insurance Act, while valid provincial legislation under the property and civil rights power, encroached upon the core activity of banking and was, accordingly, inapplicable to banks on the basis of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. Alternatively, the banks argued that the doctrine of paramountcy made the provincial legislation inapplicable to the promotion of insurance by banks. The banks applied for a declaration that they were immune from the provincial regulatory scheme.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application. Federally chartered banks, in promoting authorized types of insurance as permitted by the Bank Act, were subject to the regulatory scheme of the Alberta Insurance Act and Regulations. The challenged provisions of the Act were valid provincial legislation under the province's property and civil rights power (Constitution Act, 1867, s. 92(14)). The doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity was inapplicable, because the promotion of authorized insurance was not at the "core" of banking; it was not part of the "basic, minimum or unassailable" aspects of that function. The paramountcy doctrine was also inapplicable. There was no operational conflict between federal legislation empowering banks to promote insurance and provincial legislation making banks subject to provincial regulation.

Banks and Banking - Topic 1204

Powers of banks - Scope of "business of banking" - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 7286 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2511

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - General principles - Interjurisdictional immunity - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench explained and distinguished between the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and paramountcy - See paragraphs 100, 101, 195.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2511

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - General principles - Interjurisdictional immunity - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 7286 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2586

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - Extrinsic aids in determining legislative subject matter - Extrinsic materials - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "it is accepted that in constitutional cases some use can be made of background reports and studies, and the work of Parliamentary committees leading up to the legislation that is being examined. This type of evidence is particularly admissible in a pith and substance analysis. A more limited use of such evidence can also be made in interpreting the statutes that result from the studies and reports." - See paragraph 84.

Constitutional Law - Topic 3614

Paramountcy of federal statutes - Overlapping legislation - Conflict - What constitutes - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 7286 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 6161

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Banking - General - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 7286 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7286

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92) - Property and civil rights - Regulatory statutes - Insurance business - The Bank Act empowered federally chartered banks to promote authorized insurance - The Alberta Insurance Act regulated the sale of insurance ancillary to other goods and services, requiring banks to obtain a "restricted insurance agent's certificate of authority" and subjecting them to certain market standards regulations - The banks challenged the constitutionality of those portions of the Insurance Act purporting to regulate federally chartered banks - The banks submitted that the Insurance Act, while valid provincial legislation under the property and civil rights power, encroached upon the core activity of banking and was, accordingly, inapplicable to banks on the basis of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity - Alternatively, the banks relied on the doctrine of paramountcy - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the banks' application for a declaration that they were immune from the provincial regulatory scheme - Federally chartered banks, in promoting insurance as permitted by the Bank Act, were subject to the regulatory scheme of the Alberta Insurance Act - The challenged provisions were valid provincial legislation under the province's property and civil rights power (Constitution Act, 1867, s. 92(14)) - The doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity was inapplicable, because the promotion of insurance was not at the "core" of banking; it was not part of the "basic, minimum or unassailable" aspects of that function - The paramountcy doctrine did not apply where there was no operational conflict between the federal and provincial legislation.

Cases Noticed:

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1987] 3 F.C. 593; 78 N.R. 180 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 12].

Optima Communications Canada Inc. - see Bank of Nova Scotia et al. v. Superintendent of Financial Institutions (B.C.) et al.

Bank of Nova Scotia et al. v. Superintendent of Financial Institutions (B.C.) et al. (2003), 178 B.C.A.C. 118; 292 W.A.C. 118; 2003 BCCA 29; 11 B.C.L.R.(4th) 206; 223 D.L.R.(4th) 126, reving. [2001] B.C.T.C. 1517; 95 B.C.L.R.(3d) 327 (S.C.), disagreed with [para. 37, footnote 46].

Central Computer Services Ltd. and Comcheq Services Ltd. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (1979), 1 Man.R.(2d) 402; 107 D.L.R.(3d) 88 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (1980), 33 N.R. 262; 5 Man.R.(2d) 180, appeal discontinued [1980] 2 S.C.R. vi, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 52].

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 69, footnote 97].

Canadian Pioneer Management Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Sask.) and Saskatchewan Joint Board, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 433; 31 N.R. 361; 2 Sask.R. 217, refd to. [para. 70, footnote 100].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463; 157 N.R. 97; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 84, footnote 128].

Reference Re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783; 254 N.R. 201; 261 A.R. 201; 225 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 84, footnote 128].

Reference Re Goods and Services Tax, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 445; 138 N.R. 247; 127 A.R. 161; 20 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 86, footnote 131].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 462, refd to. [para. 86, footnote 131].

Citizens Insurance Co. v. Parsons (1881), 7 App.Cas 96 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 94, footnote 135].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1916] 1 A.C. 588 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 94, footnote 136].

Reference Re Insurance Companies - see Canada (Attorney General) v. Alberta (Attorney General).

Reciprocal Insurance Legislation, Re, [1924] A.C. 328 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 94, footnote 137].

Insurance Act and Special War Revenue Act, Re, [1932] A.C. 41 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 94, footnote 138].

Section 16 of the Special War Revenue Act, Re, [1942] S.C.R. 429, leave to appeal refused [1943] 4 D.L.R. 657 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 94, footnote 139].

Canadian Indemnity Co. et al. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1977] 2 S.C.R. 504; 11 N.R. 466, refd to. [para. 94, footnote 140].

Kitkatla Indian Band et al. v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture) et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 146; 286 N.R. 131; 165 B.C.A.C. 1; 270 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 95, footnote 143].

City National Leasing Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641; 93 N.R. 326; 32 O.A.C. 332, refd to. [para. 95, footnote 144].

Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 494; 252 N.R. 290; 134 B.C.A.C. 207; 219 W.A.C. 207; 2000 SCC 21, refd to. [para. 96, footnote 146].

Siemens et al. v. Manitoba (Attorney General) et al. (2002), 299 N.R. 267; 173 Man.R.(2d) 1; 293 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 96, footnote 146].

Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 113; 276 N.R. 339; 157 B.C.A.C. 161; 256 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 98, footnote 147].

Hodge v. R. (1883), 9 App. Cas. 117 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 98, footnote 147].

Bank of Montreal v. Hall, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 121; 104 N.R. 110; 82 Sask.R. 120, refd to. [para. 99, footnote 149].

Tennant v. Union Bank of Canada, [1894] A.C. 31 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 99, footnote 149].

Commission du salaire minimum v. Bell Canada, [1966] S.C.R. 767, refd to. [para. 102, footnote 152].

Bell Canada v. Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (Qué.) and Bilodeau et al., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 749; 85 N.R. 295; 15 Q.A.C. 217, refd to. [para. 103, footnote 153].

Keable and Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 218; 24 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 104, footnote 158].

McKay v. R., [1965] S.C.R. 798, refd to. [para. 104, footnote 159].

Commission de transport de la communauté urbaine de Québec v. Commission des champs de bataille nationaux, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 838; 115 N.R. 106; 34 Q.A.C. 282, refd to. [para. 104, footnote 160].

Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 104, footnote 161].

Workmen's Compensation Board v. Canadian Pacific Railway, [1920] A.C. 184 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 105, footnote 162].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 163].

Canadian Pacific Railway v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1950] A.C. 122 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 105, footnote 164].

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031; 183 N.R. 325; 82 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 165].

Bank of Toronto v. Lambe (1887), 12 App. Cas. 575 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 105, footnote 166].

Alberta (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1939] A.C. 117 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 105, footnote 166].

Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers' International Union v. Imperial Oil Ltd., [1963] S.C.R. 584, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 167].

Ontario Public Service Employees' Union et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al., [1987] 2 S.C.R. 2; 77 N.R. 321; 23 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 168].

Montcalm Construction Inc. v. Minimum Wage Commission et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 754; 25 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 169].

Air Canada et al. v. Liquor Control Board (Ont.) et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 581; 214 N.R. 1; 102 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 170].

Northern Telecom Canada Ltd. v. Communications Workers of Canada and Canada Labour Relations Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 115; 28 N.R. 107, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 171].

Child & Gower Piano Co. v. Gambrel, [1933] 2 W.W.R. 273 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 120, footnote 184].

Turgeon v. Dominion Bank, [1930] S.C.R. 67, refd to. [para. 124, footnote 189].

Alberta (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1947] A.C. 503 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 125, footnote 191].

Bergethaler Waisenant (No. 2), Re, [1949] 1 D.L.R. 769; [1949] 1 W.W.R. 323; 57 Man.R. 66 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 149, footnote 215].

Ontario Hydro v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 327; 158 N.R. 161; 66 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 171, footnote 243].

Union Colliery Co. v. Bryden, [1899] A.C. 580, refd to. [para. 171, footnote 246].

Mississauga (City) v. Greater Toronto Airports Authority et al. (2000), 138 O.A.C. 1; 50 O.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 192, footnote 276].

Smith v. R., [1960] S.C.R. 776, refd to. [para. 196, footnote 279].

114957 Canada ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) et al. v. Hudson (Town), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241; 271 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 199, footnote 284].

Lymburn v. Mayland, [1932] A.C. 318 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 199, footnote 285].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(15), sect. 92(11), sect. 92(13) [para. 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta, Attorney General, Sixteenth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Towards a More Competitive Financial Environment (1986), generally [para. 73, footnote 103].

Crawford and Falconbridge, Banking and Bills of Exchange (8th Ed. 1986), pp. 678, 679 [para. 107, footnote 174].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (Looseleaf Ed.), paras. 15.8(a) [para. 88, footnote 132]; 15.8(c) [para. 105, footnote 165]; 15.8(e) [para. 105, footnote 171]; 16.4(a) [para. 198, footnote 283]; 16.5(a) [para. 171, footnote 251]; 16.6 [para. 203, footnote 292]; 105 [para. 186, footnote 269].

Counsel:

N. Finkelstein, J.W. Galway and C.E. Kany-Forstner, for the applicants;

R.J. Normey, C. Enns and J. Mayan, for the respondent;

D. Gibson and K. Hurlburt, for the intervenor, Alberta Insurance Council;

R.B. White, Q.C., D. Schindelka and D.J. Wilson, for the intervenor, Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association.

This application was heard on June 4, 2003, before Slatter, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on September 22, 2003.