Canadian Western Bank et al. v. Alberta, (2007) 362 N.R. 111 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 31, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2007), 362 N.R. 111 (SCC);2007 SCC 22;49 CCLI (4th) 1;409 AR 207;[2007] RRA 241;JE 2007-1068;362 NR 111;[2007] SCJ No 22 (QL);EYB 2007-120167;157 ACWS (3d) 299;[2007] 8 WWR 1;281 DLR (4th) 125;[2007] 2 SCR 3;75 Alta LR (4th) 1

Cdn. Western Bk. v. Alta. (2007), 362 N.R. 111 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2007] N.R. TBEd. MY.036

Canadian Western Bank, Bank of Montreal, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, HSBC Bank Canada, National Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Nova Scotia and Toronto-Dominion Bank (appellants) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Alberta (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of New Brunswick, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Alberta Insurance Council, Financial Advisors Association of Canada, AIG Life Insurance Company of Canada, Canada Life Assurance Company, La Capitale Civil Service Insurer Inc., La Capitale Insurance and Financial Services Inc., CUMIS Life Insurance Company, Desjardins Financial Security Life Assurance Company, Empire Life Insurance Company, Equitable Life Insurance Company of Canada, Great-West Life Assurance Company, Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc., Industrial-Alliance Pacific Life Insurance Company, London Life Insurance Company, Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, Standard Life Assurance Company of Canada, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Transamerica Life Canada (intervenors)

(30823; 2007 SCC 22; 2007 CSC 22)

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

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.

May 31, 2007.

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, in a judgment reported (2004), 343 A.R. 89, 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. The banks appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2005), 361 A.R. 112; 339 W.A.C. 112, dismissed the appeal. The banks appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing that interjurisdictional immunity was inapplicable. Parliament allowing federally regulated banks to enter into a provincially regulated line of business such as insurance could not unilaterally broaden the scope of the exclusive legislative power granted by the Constitution Act, 1867. Some jurisdictional overlap was inevitable when a federally regulated entity participated in provincially regulated activities. However, the paramountcy doctrine was not engaged, as there was no operational conflict and absent conflict with a valid federal law, valid provincial legislation applied. Compliance by the banks with provincial insurance legislation complemented, not frustrated, the federal purpose.

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 Supreme Court of Canada generally discussed the history and restricted applicability of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity, which provided that the exclusive powers reserved to the federal and provincial governments under ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, must be assured a "basic, minimum and unassailable content" immune from the application of legislation enacted by the other level of government - The court noted that the "dominant tide" of constitutional interpretation no longer favoured the interjurisdictional immunity doctrine - The pith and substance analysis and the double aspect doctrine "have the ability to resolve most problems relating to the validity of the exercise of legislative powers under the heads of power applicable to the activities in question" - The court stated that "while the text and logic of our federal structure justifies the application of interjurisdictional immunity to certain federal 'activities'; nevertheless, a broad application of the doctrine to 'activities' creates practical problems of application much greater than in the case of works or undertakings, things or persons, whose limits are more readily defined. A broad application also appears inconsistent ... with the flexible federalism that the constitutional doctrines of pith and substance, double aspect and federal paramountcy are designed to promote. ... we intend now to make it clear that the court does not favour an intensive reliance on the doctrine, nor should we accept the invitation of the appellants to turn it into a doctrine of first recourse in a division of powers dispute" - See paragraphs 30 to 47.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2511

Determination of validity of statutes or Acts - General principles - Interjurisdictional immunity - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "it is when the adverse impact of a law adopted by one level of government increases in severity from 'affecting' to 'impairing' (without necessarily 'sterilizing' or 'paralyzing') that the 'core' competence of the other level of government (or the vital or essential part of an undertaking it duly constitutes) is placed in jeopardy, and not before. ... in the absence of impairment, interjurisdictional immunity does not apply." - See paragraphs 48 to 49.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2511

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

Constitutional Law - Topic 2950

Determination of validity of statutes or Acts - Pith and substance - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that to determine the "pith and substance" of legislation, the court had to examine the purpose of the enacting body and the legal effect of the legislation - To examine the purpose, both intrinsic evidence (legislation's preamble or purpose clause) and extrinsic evidence (Hansard or Parliamentary debates) could be considered - The goal was to find the "true purpose" of the legislation - The court stated that "the 'pith and substance' doctrine is founded on the recognition that it is in practice impossible for a legislature to exercise its jurisdiction over a matter effectively without incidentally affecting matters within the jurisdiction of another level of government." - See paragraphs 27, 29.

Constitutional Law - Topic 3611

Paramountcy of federal statutes - Overlapping legislation - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the onus is on the party relying on the doctrine of federal paramountcy to demonstrate that the federal and provincial laws are in fact incompatible by establishing either that it is impossible to comply with both laws or that to apply the provincial law could frustrate the purpose of the federal law" - See paragraph 75.

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 them, submitting that the Insurance Act, while valid provincial legislation, encroached upon the core activity of banking and was, accordingly, inapplicable to banks on the basis of the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and paramountcy - The trial judge rejected the banks' claim to immunity 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, as 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 - The Supreme Court of Canada agreed, stating that "the fact that Parliament allows a bank to enter into a provincially regulated line of business such as insurance cannot, by federal statute, unilaterally broaden the scope of the exclusive legislative power granted by the Constitution Act, 1867. When promoting insurance, the banks are participating in the business of insurance and only secondarily furthering the security of their loan portfolios, as the evidentiary record clearly established. ... when federally regulated entities take part in provincially regulated activities there will inevitably result a measure of jurisdictional overlap. Nevertheless, the paramountcy doctrine is not engaged. Absent conflict with a valid federal law, valid provincial legislation will apply. Here there is no operational conflict. Compliance by the banks with provincial insurance laws will complement, not frustrate, the federal purpose." - See paragraphs 20 to 110.

Courts - Topic 128

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - Courts of superior jurisdiction - Supreme Court of Canada - Refusal to grant leave to appeal - Effect of - Appellants relied heavily on an appellate decision for which leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was refused - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "refusal of leave should not be taken to indicate agreement with the judgment sought to be appealed from, any more than the grant of leave can be taken to indicate disagreement. In the leave process, the court does not hear or adjudicate a case on the merits. The notation 'leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused' is inserted in law reports for editorial convenience." - See paragraph 88.

Cases Noticed:

Tennant v. Union Bank of Canada, [1894] A.C. 31 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

Citizens Insurance Co. of Canada v. Parsons (1881), 7 App. Cas. 96 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Canadian Indemnity Co. et al. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1977] 2 S.C.R. 504; 11 N.R. 466, refd to. [para. 20].

Canadian Pioneer Management Ltd. et al. v. Labour Relations Board (Sask.) et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 433; 31 N.R. 361; 2 Sask.R. 217, refd to. [para. 20].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203, refd to. [para. 21].

Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), [1930] A.C. 114 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Reference Re Employment Insurance Act, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 669; 339 N.R. 279; 2005 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 24].

Husky Oil Operations Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 453; 188 N.R. 1; 137 Sask.R. 81; 107 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 24].

Anti-Inflation Act, Re, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373; 9 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 25].

Reference Re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783; 254 N.R. 201; 261 A.R. 201; 225 W.A.C. 201; 2000 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 25].

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. 25].

Saumur v. Quebec (City), [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, refd to. [para. 26].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Reciprocal Insurers, [1924] A.C. 328 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Alberta (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1939] A.C. 117 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

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. 28].

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 473; 339 N.R. 129; 218 B.C.A.C. 1; 359 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 49, refd to. [para. 28].

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. 28].

Bank of Toronto v. Lambe (1887), 12 App. Cas. 575 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Hodge v. R. (1883), 9 App. Cas. 117 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

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. 30].

O'Grady v. Sparling, [1960] S.C.R. 804, refd to. [para. 30].

Union Colliery Co. v. Bryden, [1899] A.C. 580 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1937] A.C. 326 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Natural Parents v. Superintendent of Child Welfare (B.C.) et al., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 751; 6 N.R. 491, refd to. [para. 34].

Attorney General of Canada v. Law Society of British Columbia - see Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia et al.

Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307; 43 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Dominion Stores Ltd. and Ontario (Attorney General), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 844; 30 N.R. 399, refd to. [para. 35].

Labatt Breweries of Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) and Quebec (Attorney General), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 914; 30 N.R. 496, refd to. [para. 35].

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. 36].

John Deere Plow Co. v. Wharton, [1915] A.C. 330 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

Great West Saddlery Co. v. R., [1921] 2 A.C. 91 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Winner, [1954] 4 D.L.R. 657 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Toronto Corp. v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada, [1905] A.C. 52 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Derrickson v. Derrickson et al., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 285; 65 N.R. 278, refd to. [para. 40].

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. 41].

Ordon Estate v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 41].

McKay v. R., [1965] S.C.R. 798, refd to. [para. 41].

Scowby et al. v. Glendinning et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 226; 70 N.R. 241; 51 Sask.R. 208; 32 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 41].

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. 44].

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. 45].

Burrardview Neighbourhood Association v. Vancouver (City) et al. (2007), 362 N.R. 208; 2007 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Dick, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 309; 62 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 48].

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. 49].

Reference Re Validity of Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (Stevedores Case), [1955] S.C.R. 529, refd to. [para. 51].

Commission du salaire minimum (Que.) v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada, [1966] S.C.R. 767, refd to. [para. 51].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Courtois and Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (Qué.) et al., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 868; 85 N.R. 260; 15 Q.A.C. 181, refd to. [para. 52].

Alltrans Express Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) et al., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 897; 85 N.R. 241; 15 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 52].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Corporation of the Parish of Notre Dame de Bonsecours, [1899] A.C. 367 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1028; 183 N.R. 323; 82 O.A.C. 241; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 52].

Mississauga (City) v. Greater Toronto Airports Authority et al. (2000), 138 O.A.C. 1; 50 O.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [2001] 1 S.C.R. ix; 274 N.R. 196; 153 O.A.C. 200, refd to. [para. 54].

Johannesson v. West St. Paul (Rural Municipality), [1952] S.C.R. 292, refd to. [para.54].

Orangeville Airport Ltd. v. Caledon (Town) (1976), 66 D.L.R.(3d) 610 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Venchiarutti v. Longhurst et al. (1992), 56 O.A.C. 302; 8 O.R.(3d) 422 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Registrar of Motor Vehicles v. Canadian American Transfer Ltd., [1972] S.C.R. 811, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Toronto Magistrates, Ex parte Tank Truck Transport Ltd., [1960] O.R. 497 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Greening (1992), 43 M.V.R.(2d) 53 (Ont. Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. TNT Canada Inc. (1986), 18 O.A.C. 133; 37 D.L.R.(4th) 297 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Montcalm Construction Inc. v. Minimum Wage Commission (Que.) et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 754; 25 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 56].

Air Canada 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. 56].

Public Utilities Commission and Victoria Cablevision Ltd., Re (1965), 51 D.L.R.(2d) 716 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Kellogg's Company of Canada, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 211; 19 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 58].

Paul v. Forest Appeals Commission (B.C.) et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 585; 310 N.R. 122; 187 B.C.A.C. 1; 307 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 55, refd to. [para. 60].

Paul v. Paul et al., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 306; 65 N.R. 291, refd to. [para. 61].

Four B Manufacturing Ltd. v. United Garment Workers of America, Labour Relations Board (Ont.) and Brant et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1031; 30 N.R. 421, refd to. [para. 61].

Reference Re Minimum Wage Act (Sask.), [1948] S.C.R. 248, refd to. [para. 62].

Letter Carriers' Union of Canada v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers et al., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 178, refd to. [para. 62].

Keable and Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 218; 24 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 62].

Alberta (Attorney General) v. Putnam, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 267; 37 N.R. 1; 28 A.R. 387, refd to. [para. 62].

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 71].

Bank of Montreal v. Hall, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 121; 104 N.R. 110; 82 Sask.R. 120, refd to. [para. 73].

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 188; 331 N.R. 116; 257 Sask.R. 171; 342 W.A.C. 171; 2005 SCC 13, refd to. [para.73].

Gregory Co. v. Imperial Bank of Canada, [1960] C.S. 204 (Que.), refd to. [para. 81].

Commissioners of the State Savings Bank of Victoria v. Permewan Wright & Co. (1914), 19 C.L.R. 457, refd to. [para. 84].

Alberta (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1947] A.C. 503 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 85].

Turgeon v. Dominion Bank, [1930] S.C.R. 67, refd to. [para. 86].

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; 223 D.L.R.(4th) 126; 11 B.C.L.R.(4th) 206; 2003 BCCA 29, leave to appeal refused, [2003] 3 S.C.R. viii; 326 N.R. 200; 207 B.C.A.C. 318; 341 W.A.C. 318, refd to. [para. 87].

Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 297; 53 N.R. 268; 47 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 139 A.P.R. 125, refd to. [para. 104].

Statutes Noticed:

Bank Act, S.C. 1991, c. 46, sect. 409(1), sect. 409(2)(a), sect. 416(1), sect. 416(2), sect. 416(4) [Appendix].

Bank Act Regulations (Can.), Insurance Business (Banks and Bank Holding Companies) Regulations, SOR/92-330, sect. 2 [Appendix]; sect. 7(2)(a) [para. 103].

Insurance Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. I-3, sect. 1(n), sect. 1(bb), sect. 454, sect. 468(1), sect. 482 [Appendix].

Insurance Act Regulations (Alta.), Insurance Agents and Adjusters Regulation, Reg. 122/2001, sect. 12, sect. 14(1), sect. 14(2), sect. 15, sect. 16, sect. 17, sect. 18 [Appendix].

Insurance Agents and Adjusters Regulation - see Insurance Act Regulations (Alta.).

Insurance Business (Banks and Bank Holding Companies) Regulations - see Bank Act Regulations (Can.).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brun, Henri, and Tremblay, Guy, Droit constitutionnel (4th Ed. 2002), p. 451 [para. 29].

Canada, Department of Finance, Final Report of the Task Force on the Future of Canadian Financial Services Sector, Change Challenge Opportunity, Recommendation No. 19 (1998), p. 197 [para. 106].

Canada, Department of Finance, Green Paper on the Regulation of Canadian Financial Institutions: Proposals for Discussion (1985), pp. 84, 85 [para. 105].

Canada, Department of Finance, Task Force on the Future of the Canadian Financial Services Sector, Change Challenge Opportunity, Organizational Flexibility for Financial Institutions: A Framework to Enhance Competition, Background Paper No. 2 (1998), p. 93 [para. 106].

Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Finance, The Future Starts Now: A Study on the Financial Services Sector in Canada (1998), p. 130 [para. 107].

Canada, Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking Trade and Commerce, Towards a More Competitive Financial Environment, Report No. 16 (1986), p. 64 [para. 105].

Canadian Bankers Association, Your Guide to Financial Services: An overview of Canadian financial products and services (1999), p. 5 [para. 5].

Gélinas, Fabien, La doctrine des immunités interjuridictionnelles dans le partage des compétences: éléments de systématisation, in Mélanges Jean Beetz (1995), p. 471 [para. 42].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (1997 Looseleaf Ed.) (2005 Update, Release 1), vol. 1, pp. 15-30 [para. 45]; 15-34 [para. 35]; paras. 15.5(a) [para. 28]; 15.8(c) [para. 42]; 15.8(c), fn. 116 [para. 117]; 24.2(a) [para. 118].

Laskin, Bora, Canadian Constitutional Law: Cases, Text and Notes on Distribution of Legislative Power (3rd Ed. 1969), p. 603 [para. 83].

Leclair, Jean, The Supreme Court of Canada's Understanding of Federalism; Efficiency at the Expense of Diversity (2003), 28 Queen's L.J. 411, generally [para. 45].

Magnet, Joseph Eliot, Constitutional Law of Canada: Cases, Notes and Materials, Research Note: The Difference Between Paramountcy and Interjurisdictional Immunity (8th Ed. 2001), vol. 1, p. 338 [para. 114].

McDonald, Patrick N., The B.N.A. Act and the Near Banks: A Case Study in Federalism (1972), 10 Alta. L. Rev. 155, p. 156 [para. 83].

Weiler, Paul C., The Supreme Court and the Law of Canadian Federalism (1973), 23 U.T.L.J. 307, pp. 308 [para. 37]; 312 [para. 45].

Counsel:

Neil Finkelstein, Jeffrey Galway and Catherine Beagan Flood, for the appellants;

Robert Normey, Christine Enns and Nick Parker, for the respondent;

Peter M. Southey, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

Robin K. Basu and Bay Ryley, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Ontario;

Alain Gingras, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Quebec;

John G. Furey, for the intervenor, Attorney General of New Brunswick;

Sarah Macdonald, for the intervenor, Attorney General of British Columbia;

Thomson Irvine and James Hall, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Katharine L. Hurlburt and Dale Gibson, for the intervenor, Alberta Insurance Council;

L. David Roebuck, David Stratas, Sara Gelgor and Brad Elberg, for the intervenor, Financial Advisors Association of Canada;

Terrence J. O'Sullivan and M. Paul Michell, for the intervenors, AIG Life Insurance Co. of Canada et al.

Solicitors of Record:

Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants;

Attorney General of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent;

Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor Attorney General of Ontario;

Attorney General of Quebec, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Quebec;

Attorney General of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the intervenor, Attorney General of New Brunswick;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervenor, Attorney General of British Columbia;

Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Emery Jamieson, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervenor, Alberta Insurance Council;

Heenan Blaikie, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Financial Advisors Association of Canada;

Lax O'Sullivan Scott, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenors, AIG Life Insurance Co. of Canada et al.

This appeal was heard on April 11, 2007, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On May 31, 2007, the judgment of the Court was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Binnie and LeBel, JJ. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 110;

Bastarache, J. - see paragraphs 111 to 129.