Touch of Evil: Disagreements at the Heart of the Criminal Law Power

Authors

Eric M. Adams, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta

Abstract

Evil has been a diffıcult presence to shake in the judicial treatment of Parliament’s criminal law power, s. 91(27). From its early treatment by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to the Supreme Court of Canada’s latest disagreements in Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, the necessity of suppressing evil has woven in and out of the jurisprudence of the criminal law power. Alluring for its potential to provide some integrity and definitional limits to a broad head of jurisdictional power, a judicial standard premised on evil ultimately distracts more than it assists in adjudicating the division of powers by drawing courts into unquantifiable assessments of the amount of evil required before Parliament can validly enact criminal law. Better for courts to be guided by the broader conception of criminal public purpose articulated in Justice Rand’s famous judgment in Margarine Reference as a way to enable the respect of the full scope of Parliament’s authority while also protecting the balance of federalism. The Supreme Court’s divided reasons in Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act provide hope for just that approach while also suggesting that evil may continue to unhelpfully hover at the edges of a case law it has haunted for too long.

Citation Information

Adams, Eric M.. "Touch of Evil: Disagreements at the Heart of the Criminal Law Power." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 104. (2022).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1426
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol104/iss1/4

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

References

1 Touch of Evil, Orson Welles (United States: Universal-International, 1958). See Richard Deming, Touch of Evil (London, Bloomsbury, 2020), at 15 for analysis of "the dazzling opening sequence, rightly one of the most famous in film history".

2 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).

3 Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, S.C. 2017, c. 3 [hereinafter "GNDA"].

4 Constitution Act, 1867, (U.K.) 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, s. 91

(27) [reprinted in R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 5].

5 Sharron Hale & Dwight Newman, "Constitutionalism and the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act Reference" 2020 29:3 Const. Forum Const. 31, at 31. See also Yann Joly et al., "Erring in Law and in Fact: The Supreme Court of Canada's Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act" 2021 99 Can. Bar Rev. 172.

6 Constitution Act, 1867, (U.K.) 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3 [reprinted in R.C.S. 1985, App. II, No. 5].

7 See Eric M. Adams, "Canadian Constitutional Interpretation" in Cameron Hutchison, The Fundamentals of Statutory Interpretation (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 2018), at 128.

8 "Courts apply considerations of policy along with legal principle" Sopinka J. explains, "the task requires 'a nice balance of legal skill, respect for established rules, and plain common sense.'" R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] S.C.R. 463, at 481 (S.C.C.).

9 Constitution Act, 1867, (U.K.) 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, s. 91 (27) [reprinted in R.C.S. 1985, App. II, No. 5].

10 William R. Lederman, "Classification of Laws and the British North America Act" in Continuing Canadian Constitutional Dilemmas (Toronto: Butterworths, 1981), at 236.

11 See Andrew Leach & Eric M. Adams, "Seeing Double: Peace, Order and Good Government and the Impact of Federal Greenhouse Gas Emissions Legislation on Provincial Jurisdiction" (2020) 29 Const. Forum Const. 1. On cooperative federalism see Eric M. Adams, "Judging the Limits of Cooperative Federalism" (2016) 76 SCLR 26. https://doi.org/10.21991/cf29392

12 Bruce Ryder, "Equal Autonomy in Canadian Federalism: The Continuing Search for Balance in the Interpretation of the Division of Powers" (2011) 54 Sup. Ct. L. Rev. 565, at 566. https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1226

13 Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, [2010] S.C.J. No. 61, 2010 SCC 61, at 43 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "AHRA"].

14 General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. City National Leasing Ltd., [1989] S.C.J. No. 28, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641, at 660 (S.C.C.).

15 See Cheryl H. Fresch, A Variorum Commentary on the Poems of John Milton, Vol. 5, Part 4: Paradise Lost, Book 4, ed by P.J. Klemp (Pittsburg, PA: Duquesne University Press, 2011), at 4.108-10 for an extended analysis of the meaning of the line.

16 John T. Saywell, The Lawmakers: Judicial Power and the Shaping of Canadian Federalism (Toronto: Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History, 2004), at 6, 7.

17 Desmond H. Brown, The Genesis of the Canadian Criminal Code of 1892, 2d ed. (Edmonton: University of Alberta Libraries, 1990), at 187.

18 "[N]o record has been found of a voice raised in opposition to [s. 91(27)], either in the [Confederation debates] or in other published material": Desmond H. Brown, The Genesis of the Canadian Criminal Code of 1892, 2d ed. (Edmonton: University of Alberta Libraries, 1990), at 188.

19 AHF Lefroy, The Law of Legislative Power in Canada (Toronto: Toronto Law Book Publishing, 1897), at 549.

20 The Honourable Morris J. Fish, "The Effect of Alcohol on the Canadian Constitution . . . Seriously" (2011) 57:1 McGill L.J. 189. https://doi.org/10.7202/1006421ar

21 Russell v. The Queen, 1881-82 7 A.C. 829 (P.C.) [hereinafter "Russell"].

22 Russell v. The Queen, 1881-82 7 A.C. 829, at 840 (P.C.).

23 Wayne Morrison, ed., Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (London: Cavendish, 2001).

24 Russell v. The Queen, 1881-82 7 A.C. 829, at 842 (P.C.).

25 As Idington J. would later write, "In the Russell Case, the regulation of trade and commerce was not abandoned, the criminal law was hinted at, the right to prevent dangerous things being done suggested. What all these meant or might mean was not decided." Reference re: Insurance Act 1910 (Canada) SS. 4 & 70, (1913), 48 S.C.R. 260, at 287 (S.C.C.).

26 Reference re: An Act to Prevent the Profanation of the Lord's Day (Ont.), [1903] J.C.J. No. 1, [1903] A.C. 524, at 529 (P.C.).

27 The "criminal law in its widest sense" quote from Hamilton Street Railway provided the opening words of the chapter on the criminal law power in Bora Laskin's leading treatise on Canadian Constitutional Law. Bora Laskin, Canadian Constitutional Law, 3d ed. rev. (Toronto: Carswell, 1969), at 849.

28 Re The Board of Commerce Act, 1919, and the Combines and Fair Prices Act, 1919, (1922) 1 A.C. 192 (P.C.).

29 Re The Board of Commerce Act, 1919, and the Combines and Fair Prices Act, 1919, (1922) 1 A.C. 192, at 199 (P.C.). On Haldane's constitutional theories see Frederick Vaughan, Viscount Haldane: "The Wicked Stepfather of the Canadian Constitution" (Toronto: Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History, 2010).

30 Reference re: Reciprocal Insurance Act, 1922 (Ont.), [1924] J.C.J. No. 1, [1924] A.C. 328 (P.C.) [hereinafter "Reciprocal Insurers"].

31 Reference re: Reciprocal Insurance Act, 1922 (Ont.), [1924] J.C.J. No. 1, [1924] A.C. 328, at 340 (P.C.).

32 Reference re: Reciprocal Insurance Act, 1922 (Ont.), [1924] J.C.J. No. 1, [1924] A.C. 328 (P.C.). In a subsequent Supreme Court of Canada decision, Duff J. returned to the theme. "The words of head 27 read in their widest sense", he wrote, "enable Parliament to take notice of conduct in any field of human activity, by prohibiting acts of a given description and declaring such acts to be criminal and punishable as such. But it is obvious that the constitutional autonomy of the provinces would disappear, if . . .. it were competent to Parliament by the use of those powers, to prescribe and indirectly to enforce rules of conduct, to which the provincial legislatures ad not given their sanction, in spheres exclusively allotted to provincial control." Reference re: Combines Investigation Act (Canada), [1929] S.C.J. No. 19, [1929] S.C.R. 409, at 412 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Re Combines Investigation Act"].

33 John E. Read, "Constitutional Aspects of Rex v. Nadon" (1926) 4:7 C.B.R. 460, at 461.

34 Ontario v. Reciprocal Insurers, [1924] J.C.J. No. 1, [1924] A.C. 328, at 343 (P.C.).

35 Richard Simeon & Ian Robinson, State, Society, and the Development of Canadian Federalism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990); John Willis, ed., Canadian Boards at Work (Toronto: MacMillan, 1941).

36 Re The Board of Commerce Act, 1919, and the Combines and Fair Prices Act, 1919, (1922) 1 A.C. 192, at 413 (P.C.).

37 Re The Board of Commerce Act, 1919, and the Combines and Fair Prices Act, 1919, (1922) 1 A.C. 192, at 413 (P.C.).

38 Reference re: The Combines Investigation Act (Canada) s. 36, [1931] J.C.J. No. 1, [1931] A.C. 310, at 323-24 (P.C.).

39 Reference re: The Combines Investigation Act (Canada) s. 36, [1931] J.C.J. No. 1, [1931] A.C. 310, at 323-24 (P.C.).

40 Reference re: The Combines Investigation Act (Canada) s. 36, [1931] J.C.J. No. 1, [1931] A.C. 310, at 323-24 (P.C.).

41 Proprietary Articles Trade Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1931] J.C.J. No. 1, [1931] A.C. 310, at 323-24 (P.C.).

42 Reference Re: Criminal Code (Canada) Section 498A, [1936] S.C.J. No. 26, [1936] S.C.R. 363 (S.C.C.).

43 Reference Re: Criminal Code (Canada) Section 498A, [1936] S.C.J. No. 26, [1936] S.C.R. 363, at 366 (S.C.C.).

44 Reference Re: Criminal Code (Canada) Section 498A, [1936] S.C.J. No. 26, [1936] S.C.R. 363, at 370 (S.C.C.).

45 Reference re: Criminal Code of Canada, s. 498, [1937] J.C.J. No. 7, [1937] A.C. 368p, at 376 (P.C.) [emphasis added].

46 Reference re: Criminal Code of Canada, s. 498, [1937] J.C.J. No. 7, [1937] A.C. 368p, at 376 (P.C.).

47 F. E. Labrie, "Canadian Constitutional Interpretation and Legislative Review" (1950) 8:2 U.T.L.J. 298, at 316. https://doi.org/10.2307/824548

48 Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1947] J.C.J. No. 3, [1947] A.C. 127, at 154 (P.C.). The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council agreed with the Supreme Court that Canada had the constitutional authority to govern every aspect of its own legal system. "No other solution is consonant with the status of a self-governing Dominion," Lord Jowitt held. Canadian sovereignty, he concluded, could not flourish in a system of judicial appeals in "which it had no voice." Amendments to the Supreme Court Act in 1949 confirmed the Supreme Court's status as Canada's highest court of appeal. No judge took up the cause of articulating that independence more than Justice Rand. "The powers of this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction," Rand J. would go on to argue, "are no less in scope than those formerly exercised in relation to Canada by the Judicial Committee." "[T]hat incident of judicial power," he wrote, "must, now . . . be exercised in revising or restating those formulations that have come down to us. This is a function inseparable from constitutional decision." Reference re: Farm Products Marketing Act (Ontario), [1957] S.C.R. 198, at 212-13 (S.C.C.).

49 Bora Laskin, "The Supreme Court of Canada: A Final Court of and for Canadians" (1951) 29 C.B.R. 1038.

50 Reference re: Dairy Industry Act (Canada) S. 5(a), [1948] S.C.J. No. 42, [1949] S.C.R. 1, at 50 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Margarine Reference"], affd [1950] J.C.J. No. 1, [1951] A.C. 179p (P.C.).

51 Reference re: Dairy Industry Act (Canada) S. 5(a), [1948] S.C.J. No. 42, [1949] S.C.R. 1, at 50 (S.C.C.), affd [1950] J.C.J. No. 1, [1951] A.C. 179p (P.C.).

52 Reference re: Dairy Industry Act (Canada) S. 5(a), [1948] S.C.J. No. 42, [1949] S.C.R. 1, at 50 (S.C.C.) [emphasis added], affd [1950] J.C.J. No. 1, [1951] A.C. 179p (P.C.).

53 Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.J. No. 13, [1957] S.C.R. 285, at 303 (S.C.C.). See generally, Eric M. Adams, "Building a Law of Human Rights: Roncarelli v Duplessis in Canadian Constitutional Culture" (2010) 55 McGill L.J. 437. https://doi.org/10.7202/1000619ar

54 Reference re: Dairy Industry Act (Canada) S. 5(a), [1948] S.C.J. No. 42, [1949] S.C.R. 1, at 50 (S.C.C.), affd [1950] J.C.J. No. 1, [1951] A.C. 179p (P.C.).

55 R. v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. of Canada, [1956] S.C.J. No. 8, [1956] S.C.R. 303 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Goodyear Tire"].

56 R. v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. of Canada, [1956] S.C.J. No. 8, [1956] S.C.R. 303, at 313 (S.C.C.).

57 Labatt Brewing Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1979] S.C.J. No. 134, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 914 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Labatt Breweries"]; R. v. Boggs, [1981] S.C.J. No. 6, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 49 (S.C.C.); R. v. Wetmore (County Court Judge), [1983] S.C.J. No. 74, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 284 (S.C.C.); Peter Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, student edition (Toronto: Thompson Reuters, 2016) at 18-5; Guy Régimbald & Dwight Newman, The Law of the Canadian Constitution, 2d ed. (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 2017), at 274-75 [hereinafter "The Law of the Canadian Constitution"].

58 Scowby v. Glendinning, [1986] S.C.J. No. 57, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 226, at 236 (S.C.C.).

59 Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, [2010] S.C.J. No. 61, at para. 41, 2010 SCC 61 (S.C.C.). Justice Cory adds that "like a work of art, it is something that maybe be easier to recognize than define": Knox Contracting Ltd. v. Canada, [1990] S.C.J. No. 74, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 338, at 347 (S.C.C.). See generally Allan Hutchinson & David Schneider-man, "Smoking Guns: The Federal Government Confronts the Tobacco and Gun Lobbies" (1995) 7 Const. Forum 16 Const.

60 Labatt Breweries of Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1979] S.C.J. No. 134, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 914, at 933 (S.C.C.).

61 RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] S.C.J. No. 68, at para. 28, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199 (S.C.C.).

62 RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] S.C.J. No. 68, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199 (S.C.C.).

63 RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] S.C.J. No. 68, at para. 30, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199 (S.C.C.).

64 RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] S.C.J. No. 68, at paras. 46, 47, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199 (S.C.C.).

65 RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] S.C.J. No. 68, at para. 197, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199 (S.C.C.).

66 RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] S.C.J. No. 68, at para. 200, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199 (S.C.C.).

67 RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] S.C.J. No. 68, at paras. 201, 204, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199 (S.C.C.).

68 RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] S.C.J. No. 68, at para. 211, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199 (S.C.C.).

69 R. v. Hydro-Québec, [1997] S.C.J. No. 76, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213, at 43 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1049/ir:19970213

70 Reference re: Firearms Act (Canada), [2000] S.C.J. No. 31, at para. 32, 2000 SCC 31 (S.C.C.).

71 Reference re: Firearms Act (Canada), [2000] S.C.J. No. 31, at para. 33, 2000 SCC 31 (S.C.C.).

72 Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, [2010] S.C.J. No. 61, 2010 SCC 61 (S.C.C.). See Ubaka Ogbogu, ²The Assisted Human Reproduction Act Reference and the Thin Line Between Health and Crime² (2013) 22:1 Constitutional Forum 93. https://doi.org/10.21991/C9RM2R

73 Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, [2010] S.C.J. No. 61, at para. 43, 2010 SCC 61 (S.C.C.).

74 Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, [2010] S.C.J. No. 61, at para. 43, 2010 SCC 61 (S.C.C.).

75 Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, [2010] S.C.J. No. 61, at para. 48, 2010 SCC 61 (S.C.C.).

76 Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, [2010] S.C.J. No. 61, at para. 230, 2010 SCC 61 (S.C.C.).

77 Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, [2010] S.C.J. No. 61, at para. 232, 2010 SCC 61 (S.C.C.).

78 Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, [2010] S.C.J. No. 61, at para. 233, 2010 SCC 61 (S.C.C.).

79 Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, [2010] S.C.J. No. 61, at para. 236, 2010 SCC 61 (S.C.C.).

80 Guy Régimbald & Dwight Newman, The Law of the Canadian Constitution, 2d ed. (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 2017), at 277. See also Dwight Newman, "Changing Division of Powers Doctrine and the Emergent Principle of Subsidiarity" (2011) 74:1 Sask. L. Rev. 21, at 23-24.

81 See generally Elizabeth Adjin-Tetty, "Striking the Right Balance: Does the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act Promote Access to Insurance?" (2021) 14:2 McGill J.L. & Health 201

Kathleen Hammond, "Unnecessary and Redundant? Evaluating Canada's Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, 2017" (2020) 98:3 C.B.R. 480. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3650341

82 Assisted Human Reproduction Act, S.C. 2004, c. 2. 83 Reference of the Government of Quebec concerning the constitutionality of the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2018] Q.J. No. 12399, 2018 QCCA 2193 (Que. C.A.), revd [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).

84 Reference of the Government of Quebec concerning the constitutionality of the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2018] Q.J. No. 12399, at para. 21, 2018 QCCA 2193 (Que. C.A.), revd [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.). Put another way, the Court argued: "There is no 'real public health evil' here that would justify recourse to subsection 91(27) . . . . The criminal law object advanced to justify the Act is to provide higher quality health care . . . . This is clearly not a criminal law object" (at para. 24).

85 Reference of the Government of Quebec concerning the constitutionality of the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2018] Q.J. No. 12399, at para. 24, 2018 QCCA 2193 (Que. C.A.), revd [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).

86 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, at para. 154, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.). The pith and substance debates among the judges and the roads through the deep forests of abundant Hansard evidence that took them there will have to occupy the attention of others. I will simply add my agreement with the dissent's caution that "it is the substance of the legislation that needs to be characterized, not speeches in Parliament or utterances in the press by well-meaning sponsors or opponents of the law" (at para. 165).

87 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, at para. 159, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).

88 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, at para. 154, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).

89 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, at para. 159, 2020 SCC 17.

90 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, at para. 160, 2020 SCC 17.

91 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, at para. 213, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.). The dissent's emphasis on the necessity of prohibiting all possibly-related harmful conduct in order to make valid use of the criminal law power would seem to contradict the Court's earlier acceptance of deference to the government in the exceptions it may select, or the particular conduct it may choose to focus on, in enacting valid criminal law: RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] S.C.J. No. 68, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199 (S.C.C.).

92 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, at para. 213, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).

93 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, at para. 232, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).

94 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, at para. 232, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).

95 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, at para. 232, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).

96 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, at paras. 237, 239, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).

97 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, at para. 67, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).

98 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, at para. 74, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).

99 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, at para. 75, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).

100 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, at para. 76, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).

101 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, at para. 77, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).

102 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, at paras. 87, 95, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).

103 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, at paras. 137-38, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).

104 Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, [2020] S.C.J. No. 17, at para. 138, 2020 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).

105 Paul C. Weiler, "The Supreme Court and the Law of Canadian Federalism" (1973) 23 U.T.L.J. 307, at 326. https://doi.org/10.2307/825062

106 See Hoi L. Kong, "Subsidiarity, Republicanism, and the Division of Powers in Canada" (2015) 45:12-2 RDUS 13, at 42-44 for the argument that "the LeBel-Deschamps definition of the criminal law power" preserves "a sphere of legislative autonomy which allows provincial legislatures, and enables citizens exercising their democratic agency through those legislatures, to check over-weaning exercise of federal power and the threats of domination to which these give rise". See also Dwight Newman, "Changing Division of Powers Doctrine and the Emergent Principle of Subsidiarity" (2011) 74:1 Sask. L. Rev. 21. https://doi.org/10.17118/11143/9922

107 Reference re Securities Act, [2011] S.C.J. No. 66 at para. 7 (S.C.C.); References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, [2021] S.C.J. No. 11 at para. 49 (S.C.C.).

108 Citizens Insurance Co. of Canada v. Parsons, [1881] J.C.J. No. 1, 7 App. Cas. 96, at 109 (P.C.).

109 Barbara von Tigerstrom, "Federal Health Legislation and the Assisted Human Reproduction Act Reference" (2011) 74:1 Sask. L. Rev 33, at 37; Dave Snow, "Blunting the Edge: Federalism, Criminal Law, and the Importance of Legislative History after the Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act" (2015) 48:2 U.B.C. L. Rev. 541, at 586.

110 Terry Eagleton, On Evil (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), at 131-32.

111 Reference re: Dairy Industry Act (Canada) S. 5(a), [1948] S.C.J. No. 42, [1949] S.C.R. 1, at 50 (S.C.C.), affd [1950] J.C.J. No. 1, [1950] 4 D.L.R. 689 (P.C.).

112 Reference re: Securities Act, [2011] S.C.J. No. 66, 2011 SCC 66 (S.C.C.).

113 Justice Laskin usefully suggests the "rational basis" standard as a helpful way of distinguishing between a court's proper function in assessing whether evidence exists to support an argument grounding validity under a particular head of power and being drawn in to improperly evaluating the "wisdom or expediency or likely success of a particular policy express in legislation". Reference re: Anti-Inflation Act (Canada), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373, at 423-25 (S.C.C.).

114 See, for e.g., the requirement on Canada "to adduce evidence in support of its assertion of jurisdiction" under the national concern branch of POGG: Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, [2021] S.C.J. No. 11 at para. 133 (S.C.C.).