Abstract
Federalism-based clear statement rules require governments to use clear statutory language when they pursue initiatives with certain implications for the division of powers. This article makes the case for altering the analytical approach in relation to two of the key federalism doctrines (the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity and the doctrine of federal paramountcy) by adopting a federalism-based clear statement rule. It makes this case in the context of a discussion of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Bank of Montreal v. Marcotte (2014), an important federalism case that rejected the arguments of several banks invoking both doctrines to avoid the application or operation of a provincial consumer protection law. It argues that the weaknesses evident in the Court’s analysis in the decision could be addressed, or at least mitigated, by a federalism-based clear statement rule.
Citation Information
Wright, Wade K..
"Of Banks, Federalism and Clear Statement Rules: Bank of Montreal v. Marcotte."
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference
71.
(2015).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1310
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol71/iss1/8
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.