Case information

Constitutional law — Division of powers — Federal paramountcy — Interjurisdictional immunity — Scope of provincial jurisdiction over consumer protection under Constitution, and whether this jurisdiction authorizes enactment of legislation whose purpose and effect are to regulate manner in which federal undertakings provide their services — Whether core of Parliament’s jurisdiction over telecommunications is impaired, under doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity, where provincial consumer protection legislation imposes limits on contractual terms and conditions pertaining to fees charged and services provided by undertakings under federal jurisdiction — Manner in which Parliament’s express grant of power and duty to refrain from regulating matter within federal jurisdiction affects application of doctrine of federal paramountcy.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In February 2015, two charges were brought by the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DCPP) against the applicant (Bell) for contravention of s. 214.8 of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act, CQLR, c. P-40.1 (CPA). Bell defended itself in part by arguing that the CPA provision was constitutionally invalid, inapplicable and inoperable, and was ultra vires the province as it interferes with the core federal jurisdiction over telecommunications and conflicts with the purpose of the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38. The Court of Québec held that the impugned provision was unconstitutional on the basis of the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy, and declared the provision inapplicable to and inoperative against the applicant. Bell was acquitted of the offences. The Superior Court of Quebec allowed in part the respondents’ appeal. The court determined that the impugned provision was within the jurisdiction of the province and applicable and enforceable against the applicant, except under certain circumstances for which it was declared inoperative for the period following the adoption by the CRTC of the 2013 Wireless Code. Bell brought an appeal to reverse the judgment and the respondents appealed the decision on the potential inoperability of s. 214.8 of the CPA. The Court of Appeal of Quebec dismissed the appeal by Bell and allowed the respondents’ appeal for the purpose of deleting and modifying portions of the lower court order.