Canada: Round II to the Provinces: Quebec Court of Appeal Rejects Canadian Securities Act as Unconstitutional

On March 31, 2011, the Quebec Court of Appeal released a 4-1 decision finding that the proposed Canadian Securities Act (the "CSA") is unconstitutional.1 The majority decision echoes the recent decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, which also found the CSA to be beyond federal jurisdiction.2 However, Justice Dalphond of the Quebec Court of Appeal dissented, finding that the CSA is constitutional. Neither of these decisions is the final word on the matter: the Supreme Court of Canada is scheduled to hear arguments on the CSA on April 13th and 14th, 2011, and will ultimately determine its constitutionality. It remains to be seen whether it will adopt the position of the Alberta Court of Appeal and the majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal in finding the CSA unconstitutional, or whether it will agree with the views of Justice Dalphond and conclude that the CSA is within federal authority.


In May 2010, the Government of Canada released the proposed CSA, which provides for the harmonization of the existing provincial and territorial legislation into a single federal statute and creates a national securities regulator. At the same time as releasing the CSA, the federal government referred the question of its constitutionality to the Supreme Court. Shortly after, both the Alberta and Quebec governments submitted similar reference questions to their respective appeal courts, and both courts have found the CSA to be unconstitutional. Three separate judgments were issued by the Quebec Court of Appeal: one from Chief Justice Robert, one from Justices Forget, Bich and Bouchard, and the dissent from Justice Dalphond.

The Constitution Act, 1867, divides certain powers between the provincial and federal governments. The legal issue in all of the references is whether the CSA falls under a provincial or a federal head of power. The provinces have traditionally had jurisdiction over the regulation of the securities industry under their "property and civil rights" head of power. But the federal government argued that it had jurisdiction based on its "trade and commerce" head of power.

The Majority Decision

The majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal first characterized the "pith and substance" of the CSA: Chief Justice Robert defined it as the regulation of trading in securities, and the remaining three Justices found it to be the regulation of the participants in securities markets and the regulation of information in those markets.3 The majority found that, in pith and substance, the CSA could not be meaningfully distinguished from the provincial securities legislation. The federal government argued that certain factors characterized the CSA as federal. For example, the securities market has become interprovincial and international in nature, and securities trading has now become dematerialized. However, the majority found that these factors do not change the pith and substance of the legislation.

Having determined the pith and substance, the majority considered whether the CSA fell under the federal general "trade and commerce" head of power. In prior decisions,4 the Supreme Court of Canada set out five factors that are indicative of legislation validly enacted under the trade and commerce head of power:

  1. the legislation is part of a general regulatory scheme;
  2. the scheme is monitored by the continuing oversight of a regulatory agency;
  3. the legislation is concerned with trade as a whole rather than with a particular industry;
  4. the legislation is of a nature that the provinces, jointly or severally, would be constitutionally incapable of enacting; and
  5. the failure to include one or more provinces in a legislative scheme would jeopardize the successful operation of the scheme in other parts of the country.

Like the Alberta Court of Appeal, the majority found that the CSA did not meet the last three factors. First, the majority found that even if the CSA seeks to protect and promote the access of all Canadians and Canadian companies to the capital markets, it does not regulate trade and commerce in general but rather only a particular branch of trade (i.e., securities). Second, the majority found that it was clear the provinces were constitutionally empowered to enact the scheme and had been regulating the industry effectively for decades. Finally, the majority found that there was an inherent contradiction in the CSA: the failure to include a province in the scheme could not jeopardize it because the CSA itself provides for an "opt-in" provision (provinces must opt-in to the national regime).

Justices Forget, Bich and Bouchard also considered the double aspect doctrine, which recognizes that overlapping federal and provincial legislation may both be constitutional. In such a situation, the federal legislation would prevail based on the doctrine of paramountcy. However, they found that the double aspect doctrine could not apply, as both the provincial legislation and the CSA attempt to regulate the same securities market and the same participants in that market in the same manner. The double aspect doctrine was not applicable in this situation, and would be akin to creating a new concurrent field of jurisdiction, which is not consistent with the Constitution Act, 1867. The Alberta Court of Appeal reached a similar conclusion.

The majority therefore concluded that the CSA did not fall under a federal head of power and was unconstitutional (with the exception of a few provisions that were valid based on the federal government's criminal law power). However, unlike the Alberta Court of Appeal, the Quebec Court of Appeal was not unanimous in this finding; Justice Dalphond dissented.

The Dissent

Justice Dalphond characterized the pith and substance somewhat differently than the majority: the regulation of all the participants in a capital market that has become a single, integrated, pan-Canadian market, characterized by mainly interprovincial and international transactions. While the majority placed emphasis on the fact that the provinces have always regulated the securities industry, Justice Dalphond stated that the validity of the CSA had to be determined without heed to the existing provincial statutes. Justice Dalphond's decision emphasizes that the securities industry is not exclusively provincial; at the time of the Constitution Act, 1867, the securities industry was in its infancy and therefore is not even a substantive subject matter addressed by the Constitution Act, 1867. While the evolution of provincial securities legislation demonstrates the provinces have undertaken the regulation of a number of aspects of the capital markets, Justice Dalphond noted that the federal government has similarly moved in this direction. Through banking and federal corporate law heads of power, the federal government has been increasingly enacting provisions regarding shareholders, the take-over of corporations, the compelled acquisition of shares, and so forth. Justice Dalphond stated that, in essence, the federal government has gradually been developing federal securities regulation and the CSA is the ultimate outcome of this movement.

With this background, and noting that the possibility for the federal government to enact general securities regulation has never been excluded by the Supreme Court, Justice Dalphond found that the five-part general trade and commerce power test was satisfied by the CSA:

  • the CSA is not seeking to regulate a local transaction or a particular industry, but rather all the participants in the Canadian capital markets;
  • finding that the CSA is not concerned with trade as a whole would be to sterilize the general trade and commerce power;
  • the fact the provinces can regulate (and have been regulating) numerous aspects of the securities market is not determinative – the issue is whether the CSA can achieve things that provincial regulation cannot; and
  • while the majority found that the existence of the opt-in provision was fatal to the CSA, all of the provinces will likely opt-in or adopt similar provisions to those of the federal statute, resulting in a uniform system of regulation across the entire country.

In contrast to the majority (and the Alberta Court of Appeal), Justice Dalphond found that the CSA is not an attempt to takeover a provincial power, but rather a normal legal consequence of the transformation of the Canadian capital markets, which have become integrated, interprovincial and international in nature. As such, Justice Dalphond would have found the CSA to be constitutional under the federal trade and commerce power.

Round III: The Supreme Court of Canada

This decision and the Alberta Court of Appeal's earlier decision provide a good framework for the reference to the Supreme Court. The main issues appear to be: what is the pith and substance of the CSA?; does the CSA satisfy the legal test for the federal trade and commerce power?; and does the double aspect doctrine apply?

Though the Quebec and Alberta decisions are not binding on the Supreme Court, they are important in that they demonstrate how the CSA can be characterized as being within provincial jurisdiction. The decisions no doubt will be relied on by parties opposing the CSA. However, Justice Dalphond's dissenting reasons provide an alternative perspective. His approach places more emphasis on the pan-Canadian and international nature of securities trading, rather than the narrower approach seen in the other judgments, and the federal government will undoubtedly, in part, rely on this characterization of the legislation. The final round remains with the Supreme Court.


1. 2011 QCCA 591.

2. Reference re Securities Act (Canada), 2011 ABCA 77.

3. The Alberta Court of Appeal found that the pith and substance of the CSA is "the regulation of the participants in the public capital markets in Canada, and transactions relating to the raising of capital."

4. See General Motors v. City National Leasing, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Jeffrey S. Leon
Ranjan K. Agarwal
Scott H.D. Bower
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions