Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., 252 NR 290

JudgeMcLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateJanuary 25, 2000
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations252 NR 290;[1998] BCJ No 1597 (QL);[2000] 1 SCR 494;2000 SCC 21;JE 2000-807;74 BCLR (3d) 1;95 ACWS (3d) 978;134 BCAC 207;[2000] SCJ No 5 (QL);(2000), 134 B.C.A.C. 207 (SCC);185 DLR (4th) 439;[2000] 5 WWR 1

Global Securities v. Secur. Comm. (2000), 134 B.C.A.C. 207 (SCC);

    219 W.A.C. 207

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: [2000] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AP.007

British Columbia Securities Commission (appellant) v. Global Securities Corporation (respondent) and the Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General for Ontario, the Attorney General of Quebec, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, the Attorney General of Manitoba, the Attorney General of British Columbia, the Attorney General for Alberta, the Ontario Securities Commission, the Commission des valeurs mobilières du Québec and the Alberta Securities Commission (interveners)

(26887; 2000 SCC 21)

Indexed As: Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

January 25, 2000.

Summary:

The British Columbia Securities Commis­sion made an order under s. 141(1)(b) of the British Columbia Securities Act requiring Global Securities to, inter alia, produce all records relating to Global's trading activities in the United States. Global petitioned for, inter alia, a declaration that s. 141(1)(b) was ultra vires the province.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. B43, dismissed the petition. Global appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Southin, J.A., dissenting in part, in a de­cision reported 110 B.C.A.C. 1; 178 W.A.C. 1, allowed the appeal and declared s. 141(1)(b) of the Securities Act ultra vires the province. The Commission appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. Section 141(1)(b) was intra vires the province. The court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and restored the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2950

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - Pith and substance - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the determination of the pith and substance of a legislative provision - See paragraphs 22 to 26.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7285

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92) - Property and civil rights - Regulatory statutes - Securities - Section 141(1)(b) of the British Columbia Securities Act authorized the British Columbia Securities Commis­sion to order registered brokers to produce records "to assist in the administration of the securities laws of another jurisdiction" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 141(1)(b) was intra vires the province because its pith and substance fell within the province's powers under property and civil rights (Constitution Act, 1867, s. 92(13)) - The dominant purpose of s. 141(1)(b) was the enforcement of domestic securities law, by obtaining reciprocal assistance from foreign regulators and by discovering foreign securities law vio­lations by domestic registrants - The extra­provincial effects of s. 141(1)(b) were clearly incidental to the dominant purpose - Even if s. 141(1)(b) was not in pith and substance provincial, it was clearly jus­tified under the ancillary doctrine, where it was part of a valid legislative scheme.

Securities Regulation - Topic 1245

Regulatory commissions - Powers or juris­diction - Extra-provincial transactions - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 7285 ].

Securities Regulation - Topic 1253

Regulatory commissions - Powers or juris­diction - Respecting disclosure of infor­mation - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 7285 ].

Cases Noticed:

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Scott, [1956] S.C.R. 137, refd to. [para. 13].

McCarthy and Menin and United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Re (1963), 38 D.L.R.(2d) 660 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), [1930] A.C. 124 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

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. 19].

R. v. Hydro-Québec, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213; 217 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 21].

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. 22].

Whitbread v. Walley et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1273; 120 N.R. 109, refd to. [para. 22].

Union Colliery Co. of British Columbia v. Bryden, [1899] A.C. 580 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

Saumur v. Quebec (City), [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, refd to. [para. 23].

Alberta (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1939] A.C. 117 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re; Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. et al. v. Newfoundland (Attorney General) et al., [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. 24].

Ladore v. Bennett, [1939] A.C. 468 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Smith v. R., [1960] S.C.R. 776, refd to. [para. 33].

Lymburn v. Mayland, [1932] 2 D.L.R. 6 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Gregory & Co. v. Quebec Securities Com­mission, [1961] S.C.R. 584, refd to. [para. 33].

McGuire v. McGuire, [1953] O.R. 328 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. McKenzie (W.) Securities Ltd. (1966), 56 D.L.R.(2d) 56 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Legault and Law Society of Upper Canada, Re (1975), 58 D.L.R.(3d) 641 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Underwood McLellan & Associates Ltd. v. Saskatchewan Association of Professional Engineers, Barschel, Ringheim and Gallinger (1979), 1 Sask.R. 25; 103 D.L.R.(3d) 268 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 92(13), sect. 92(14) [para. 17].

Securities Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 418, sect. 141(1), sect. 141(1)(b), sect. 141(2)(b), sect. 141(3) [para. 17].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Anisman, P., and Hogg, Peter W., Consti­tutional Aspects of Federal Securities Legislation, in Proposals for a Securities Market Law for Canada (1979), vol. 3, pp. 154 [para. 33]; 217 [para. 28].

Endinger, E., Territorial Limitations on Provincial Powers (1982), 14 Ott. L. Rev. 57, p. 94 [para. 38].

Edinger, Elizabeth R., The Constitutional Validity of Provincial Mutual Assistance Legislation: Global Securities v. British Columbia (Securities Commission) (1999), 33 U.B.C.L. Rev. 169, p. 176 [para. 27].

Erwin, P.O., The International Securities Enforcement Cooperation Act of 1990: Increasing International Cooperation in Extraterritorial Discovery? (1992), 15 Boston College Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 471, p. 485 [para. 29].

Greene, C.A.A., International Securities Law Enforcement: Recent Advances in Assistance and Cooperation (1994), 27 Vand J. Transnat'l L. 635, pp. 649, 650 [para. 29].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (Loose Leaf Ed.), vol. 1, pp. 15-6 [para. 21]; 15-8, 15-12 [para. 22]; 15-35 [para. 45].

International Organization of Securities Commissions, Securities Activity on the Internet (September 1998), generally [para. 28].

Johnston, D., and Rockwell, K.D., Ca­nadian Securities Regulation (2nd Ed. 1998), p. 4 [para. 33].

Kehoe, J.A., Exporting Insider Trading Laws: The Enforcement of U.S. Insider Trading Laws Internationally (1995), 9 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 345, p. 360 [para. 29].

Counsel:

James A. Angus and Stephen M. Zolnay, for the appellant;

Murray Clemens, Q.C., Julia E. Lawn and Douglas R. Garrod, for the respondent;

Roslyn J. Levine, Q.C., for the intervener, Attorney General of Canada;

Michel Y. Hélie, for the intervener, At­torney General for Ontario;

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

Eugene Szach, for the intervener, Attorney General of Manitoba;

Harvey Groberman, Q.C., for the intervener, Attorney General of British Columbia;

Roderick Wiltshire, for the intervener, Attorney General for Alberta;

Neil R. Finkelstein and Russell Cohen, for the intervener, Ontario Securities Com­mission;

Gérald R. Tremblay, Q.C., and Richard Proulx, for the intervener, Commission des valeurs mobilières du Québec;

Anne J. Brown and Lisa Rudan, for the intervener, Alberta Securities Commis­sion.

Solicitors of Record:

James A. Angus and Stephen M. Zolnay, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;

Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent;

Department of Justice, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Attorney General of Canada;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Attorney General for Ontario;

Department of Justice, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener, Attorney General of Quebec;

Department of Justice, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the intervener, Attorney Gen­eral of Nova Scotia;

Department of Justice, Winnipeg, Mani­toba, for the intervener, Attorney General of Manitoba;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervener, Attorney General of British Columbia;

Department of Justice, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener, Attorney General for Alberta;

Davies, Ward & Beck, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Ontario Securities Commission;

McCarthy Tétrault, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervener, Commission des valeurs mobilières du Québec;

Anne J. Brown, Calgary, Alberta, for the intervener, Alberta Securities Commis­sion.

This appeal was heard and decided on January 25, 2000, by McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following reasons were delivered on April 13, 2000, in both official languages, by Iacobucci, J.

To continue reading

Request your trial
108 practice notes
  • Nelson v. Telus Communications Inc. (Part 1), 2021 ONSC 22
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario
    • January 12, 2021
    ...of Small Business, Tourism & Culture), 2002 SCC 31 at para. 54; Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2000 SCC 21 at para. [25] Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, 2020 SCC 17; Rogers Communications Inc. c. Châteauguay (Ville), 2016 SCC 23; Canadi......
  • Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of Canada
    • March 25, 2021
    ...for Canada v. Attorney-General for Alberta, [1916] 1 A.C. 588; Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2000 SCC 21, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 494; British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2005 SCC 49, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 473; Desgagnés Transport Inc. v. Wärtsilä Cana......
  • Federal Jurisdiction In Municipal Matters: What Happens When The Provinces Or Municipalities Step On Federal Toes?
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • March 15, 2017
    ...cases providing a more detailed discussion of the principle, see Global Securities Corp v British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2000 SCC 21 at para 45, [2000] 1 SCR 494 [Global Securities Corp]; General Motors of Canada v City National Leasing, [1989] 1 SCR 641, [1989] SCJ No 28. [29] L......
  • Preventing Self-Incrimination In Cross-Border Investigations
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • June 2, 2016
    ...which is an increase from the 36 requests received in 2010). 3Global Securities Corp v British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2000 SCC 21 at para 28 [Global Securities]. 4British Columbia (Securities Commission) v McLean, 2013 SCC 67 at 51, citing Global Securities, supra note 6 at para ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
107 cases
  • Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • March 25, 2021
    ...for Canada v. Attorney-General for Alberta, [1916] 1 A.C. 588; Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2000 SCC 21, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 494; British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2005 SCC 49, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 473; Desgagnés Transport Inc. v. Wärtsilä Cana......
  • Nelson v. Telus Communications Inc. (Part 1), 2021 ONSC 22
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • January 12, 2021
    ...of Small Business, Tourism & Culture), 2002 SCC 31 at para. 54; Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2000 SCC 21 at para. [25] Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, 2020 SCC 17; Rogers Communications Inc. c. Châteauguay (Ville), 2016 SCC 23; Canadi......
  • GMAC Commercial Credit Corporation - Canada v. T.C.T. Logistics Inc., 215 OAC 313
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • July 27, 2006
    ...National Leasing, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641 (refined by Iacobucci J. in Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 494, 2000 SCC 21, and by LeBel J. in Kitkatla Band v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 14......
  • R. v. Appulonappa, 2015 SCC 59
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 27, 2015
    ...s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code (Re), 2004 SCC 42, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 248; Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2000 SCC 21, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 494; R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), 2000 SCC 31, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783; R. v. Anderson,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries