Federalism and the Paramountcy Doctrine
Federal systems require individuals to comply with laws enacted by more than one order of government. At times, the laws enacted by each order may overlap, and different approaches have been adopted to deal with this situation. In Canada, this is done through the paramountcy doctrine, which permits a court to render a law inoperative when faced with two valid but conflicting laws adopted by different orders of government. However, despite being a staple of constitutional law for over a century, the paramountcy doctrine has been the subject of important doctrinal fluctuations over the years. For the time being, the doctrine includes a narrow branch known as the operational conflict branch and a broader — and sometimes controversial — branch known as the federal purpose branch. In its 2015 trilogy on the subject, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the precise parameters of the doctrine while also noting in obiter that further doctrinal change may be on the horizon.
Copyright (c) 2023 Jesse Hartery
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with Constitutional Forum constitutionnel grant the journal the right of first publication, and agree to license the work under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) that allows others to share the work for non-commercial purposes, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal, as long as no changes are made to the original work. Please use this format to attribute this work to Constitutional Forum constitutionnel:
"First published as: Title of Article, Contributor, Constitutional Forum constitutionnel Volume/Issue, Copyright © [year], Publisher"