Canada: Supreme Court's Unanimous Ruling Sinks Canadian Securities Act (But Leaves Much To Be Salvaged)

In a unanimous opinion released yesterday,1 the Supreme Court of Canada (Court) sank the federal government's attempt to create a national securities regulator. The Court ruled that the proposed Canadian Securities Act (Act),2 "as presently drafted", is ultra vires the federal government.

The eagerly anticipated decision follows a two-day hearing in April which pitted the federal government and the province of Ontario against the strong objections of other provinces (in particular, Québec and Alberta) in a battle over the constitutionality of the Act. The controversial legislation was unveiled in May 2010 and referred to the Court for an advisory opinion regarding its constitutional validity. The federal Act has since weathered interim drubbings by the Courts of Appeal in Alberta and Québec, each of which held the Act to be unconstitutional in separate references heard earlier this year.3

The Supreme Court's decision reflects an application of established division-of-powers doctrine, ultimately determining that the Act does not fall within the federal government's general power to regulate trade and commerce under s. 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 18674 (the Constitution Act) and instead overreaches into the jurisdiction of the provinces to legislate in relation to "property and civil rights".

Before setting out an overview of the Court's reasoning, we note two (related) points:
The Court emphasized that its opinion does not rule on the public policy merits of a federal securities regime, stating that "the policy question of whether a single national securities scheme is preferable to multiple provincial regimes is not one for the courts to decide."5

  • While to all intents and purposes the current federal proposal is now dead in the water, the Court's decision does not rule out the possibility that an alternative legislative proposal to establish a federal role in the area of securities regulation could pass constitutional muster, noting that "a cooperative approach that permits a scheme that recognizes the essentially provincial nature of securities regulation while allowing Parliament to deal with genuinely national concerns remains available."6 To the extent that the perceived policy merits of a federal role in securities regulation could be agreed upon, any future attempt at establishing an alternative proposal would have to follow a collaborative effort between the federal and provincial governments. The Supreme Court notes "the growing practice of resolving the complex governance problems that arise in federations... by seeking cooperative solutions that meet the needs of the country as a whole as well as its constituent parts."7

the Decision

The Court applied the two-step approach to determining the validity of legislation under the division of powers.

The first step requires a characterization of the impugned legislation, i.e., a determination of the "pith and substance" or "main thrust" of the law. Here, the analysis looks at the purpose and effects of the law to ascertain its main thrust viewed as a single, comprehensive scheme.

In this case, taking into account the preamble to the Act and its immediate object (viz., to create a single Canadian securities regulator, the effects of the Act (which will be to subsume existing provincial and territorial securities legislation under the federal Act) and the detailed provisions of the Act), the Court found that the main thrust of the Act is to regulate, on an exclusive basis, all aspects of securities trading in Canada, including trades and occupations related to securities in each of the provinces.

The second (in this case more critical) step in the analysis is to determine whether the legislation as so characterized falls under a head of constitutional power that can support it. Here, the federal government and the other proponents of the federal Act relied exclusively on the general trade and commerce power enshrined in s. 91(2) of the Constitution Act. However, the Court affirmed that the essence of the general branch of trade and commerce power is its national focus. Federal legislation that relies on this branch of the trade and commerce power must be genuinely national in scope and qualitatively distinct from that falling under provincial heads of power under s. 92 of the Constitution Act - in particular, ss. 92(13) (property and civil rights) and 92(16) (matters of merely a local or private nature).

In determining whether the federal Act, as so characterized, falls under the general trade and commerce power, the Court applied the five indicia articulated by the Court in its 1989 decision in General Motors v. City National Leasing.8

The Court found that the first two indicia of General Motors (viz., that the Act (1) creates general regulatory scheme (2) under the oversight of a regulatory agency) were clearly met.

The more challenging legs of the journey consisted of the remaining three indicia from General Motors, viz.: (3) trade as a whole rather than industry-specific; (4) constitutional incapacity of the provinces, acting alone or in concert, to enact a comparable scheme; and (5) whether the federal scheme is likely to operate successfully if one or more provinces were not included (i.e., universality).

The Court did find that aspects of the Act appear to be related to trade as a whole. It cited management of systemic risk and national data collection as examples. However, these elements did not justify a complete takeover of existing provincial regulation. Viewing the Act as a whole, the Court concluded that the Act overreaches the proper scope of the general branch of the trade and commerce power. The Act descends well into industry-specific regulation.

Some of the most interesting analysis is the Court's application of the fourth indicia from General Motors: provincial constitutional incapacity. The Court found that indeed the provinces, acting in concert, lack the constitutional capacity to sustain a viable national scheme aimed at genuine national goals such as controlling systemic risk and Canada-wide data collection. However, the Act attempts to go well beyond these matters of undoubted national interest and reach down into the detailed regulation of all aspects of securities.

Finally, the Court applied the universality criterion. Again, viewed as a whole, the Court found that the Act would not founder if a province declined to participate in the federal scheme. The Court also noted that the opt-in feature of the federal Act (likely, a political necessity for the Act to travel as far as it did) weighs against the federal argument that the success of the Act requires the participation of all provinces.

Against this backdrop, the Court gave a negative response to the ultimate question: viewed in its entirety, does the Act address a matter of genuine national importance and scope relating to trade as a whole in a way that is distinct from provincial concerns? Some measures of the Act directed at control of the Canadian securities market as a whole may transcend intra-provincial regulation of property and civil rights. A federal scheme incorporating these measures would be constitutionally supported under the general trade and commerce power. However, the Act chiefly regulates contracts and property rights within each of the provinces and territories. Provisions of the Act that related to federal concerns, although perhaps valid on their own, cannot lend constitutional validity to the whole Act. As important as the preservation of capital markets and the maintenance of Canada's financial stability are, they do not justify the wholesale takeover of the regulation of the Canadian securities industry. In short, the Canadian Securities Act overreaches its legitimate constitutional grasp.

where do we go from here?

While a wholesale takeover of securities regulation by the federal government has been dashed (probably never to resurface), a close reading of the Court's ruling also shows much that can be salvaged from this federal attempt to eviscerate the long-standing jurisdiction of the provinces over securities regulation.

First, the Court repeatedly states that at least two aspects of the Act satisfy the General Motors indicia of a genuine national dimension that the provinces are constitutionally incapable of regulating (on their own or acting jointly). In particular, the Court recognizes that the provisions of the Act that seek to control systemic risks (i.e., a risk that the failure of one market participant will trigger defaults by other market participants, setting off a chain reaction of financial defaults) transcend provincial boundaries and threaten the Canadian securities market as a whole. The Court lists various provisions of the Act that appear to be directed at controlling systemic risk, including the provisions relating to derivatives, short-selling, credit rating, urgent regulations and data collection and sharing. More generally, the broad Canada-wide data-collection powers in the Act can be seen as transcending the boundaries of a specific province and serving the national interest in a way that the provinces cannot replicate.

There is every reason for Parliament to re-enact these provisions in a slimmed-down version of the Act. As well, earlier in the reasons, the Court acknowledged that the federal government has other heads of constitutional power that could be invoked with respect to other aspects of the Act. For example, at paragraph 32, the Court states that the constitutionality of the offence provisions of the Act is not contested. These provisions, too, could be retained in a less intrusive version of the Act.

Second, the Court points out that there is no doubt that the provinces have the constitutional capacity to enact uniform legislation on most of the administrative matters covered by the Act (e.g., registration requirements and regulation of the conduct of market participants). At paragraph 118, the Court states that the provinces (presumably at least the smaller provinces and territories) could delegate provincial regulatory powers to a single pan-Canadian regulatory body by way of administrative delegation. Such federal-provincial cooperation has been forged in other areas of overlapping jurisdiction. As examples, the Court points to our comprehensive federal/provincial schemes for egg and poultry production and marketing.

Clearly, the Court favours resolving jurisdictional wrangles (including allocating the divided jurisdiction over the wide field of securities regulation) through nuanced, cooperative solutions worked out in the country's political forum rather than through the win/lose outcomes that result from courtroom battles.

While the Canadian Securities Act was sunk before it ever saw active service, there is perhaps much that can be salvaged from its remains – including the compelling need for the federal, provincial and territorial governments to join forces on the continuing work-in-progress that is Canadian securities regulation.


1 Reference Re Securities Act, 2011 S.C.C. 66 (S.C.C.)

2 Proposed Canadian Securities Act, Order in Council P.C. 2010-667; Renvoi Concernant la Compétence du Parliament du Canada en Matière de Valuers Mobilières, 2011 Q.C.C.A. 591 (CanLII)

3 Reference Re Securities Act (Canada), 2011 A.B.C.A. 77 (Alta C.A.)

4 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3 (U.K.)

5 Supra note 1 at para. 10.

6 Supra note 1 at para. 130.

7 Supra note 1 at para. 132.

8 [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641 ["General Motors"]

The foregoing provides only an overview. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, a qualified lawyer should be consulted.

© Copyright 2012 McMillan LLP

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.

In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.