Canada: Constitutionality Of The Extra-Provincial Application Of Securities Law

Last Updated: October 20 2015
Article by Gerald D. Chipeur QC

I. Extra-provincial Impact of Provincial Securities Laws

Provincial securities legislation typically prohibits the advertisement or promotion of investment in certain security instruments, unless the investment opportunity has been properly registered with the province's securities commission or qualifies for an exemption under the province's securities legislation. This prohibition applies, regardless of whether the investment contract is intended to be completed within or beyond the borders of the province. But is such a prohibition consistent with the Constitution of Canada?

An analysis of recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada suggests that the answer is no. The Constitution prohibits the application of provincial law outside the boundaries of a province.

II. Supreme Court of Canada Precedents

Over the last five decades, the Supreme Court of Canada has had a number of opportunities to consider section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the authority it confers with respect to interprovincial trade.1 Taken together, the Court's decisions make it clear that the federal government alone has jurisdiction under the Constitution over the regulation of interprovincial trade in securities. For example, if the British Columbia government attempts to regulate the sale of securities in Alberta, such regulation will be outside the province's jurisdiction under the Constitution.

One of the first cases to reflect this application of the Constitution Act, 1867 was Carnation Company Limited v Quebec Agricultural Marketing Board, et at. 2 This case involved the Quebec Agricultural Marketing Board and its regulation of the price of the marketing and the sale of milk to be purchased by farms in Quebec. The Court ruled that the mandate of the Board was valid. In its ruling, the Court found that the orders of the Board were not directed at the regulation of interprovincial trade and "did not purport directly to control or to restrict such trade." 3 This left open the possibility that a provincial regulatory regime could succeed where it only has an incidental effect on interprovincial trade.

In Attorney-General for Manitoba v Manitoba Egg and Poultry Association et al. 4 the Court found that a proposed regulation and order governing the sale in Manitoba of all eggs, wherever produced, was invalid, as it contravened section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court decided that where a provincial order limits "the free flow of trade between provinces," 5 that scheme will amount to the regulation of interprovincial trade. This decision was followed a few years later in Central Canada Potash Co Ltd et al v Government of Saskatchewan. In Central Canada Potash, the Court concluded that the Saskatchewan legislation in question was outside the Constitutional powers of the province. 6 The Court found that the legislation was aimed directly at the production of potash desired for export and had the intended effect of regulating the export price. Whether the law is directed at the sale of eggs, potash or securities outside a province, a province may not constitutionality control contracts beyond its borders.

In 1978, the Court also decided Reference re Agricultural Products Marketing, 7 where the Court was tasked with reviewing the newly enacted Agricultural Products Marketing Act8  and assessing the constitutionality of its objectives. The Agricultural Products Marketing Act proposed to give the federal government jurisdiction over a national egg marketing scheme by imposing quotas on the provinces. In rendering its decision, the Court affirmed the validity of most of the provisions in the legislation and concluded that such a regulatory scheme was within the constitutional powers granted to the federal government.  

One of the most recent cases on this subject is Federation des producteurs de volailles du Quebec v Pelland. 9 This case involved section 22(3) of the Farm Products Agencies Act, 10 in which the federal and provincial governments entered into a regulatory scheme regarding the production and marketing of chicken in Canada. By the terms of the scheme, provincial governments were delegated the authority by the federal government to allocate and administer federal quotas. When a farmer in Quebec filed a complaint regarding Quebec's administration of his intra- and extra-provincial chicken quotas, the Court ruled that the province was within its jurisdiction to pass laws setting up such a quota system. This decision was contrasted with the Court's previous decision in Central Canada Potash, where the objectives of the legislation included the direct regulation of extra provincial trade. 11 The joint participation of both federal and provincial governments was crucial to the constitutionality of the Farm Products Agencies Act.

III. Canadian Securities Act Reference

The importance of a joint effort in the regulation of securities across provincial boundaries is apparent from the outcome in the 2011 Reference re Securities Act ("Reference"). 12 In the Reference, the Court held that the federal government's proposed Canadian Securities Act was constitutionally invalid. The purpose of the proposed legislation was to create "a single Canadian securities regulator," 13 as well as "to provide investor protection, to foster fair, efficient and competitive capital markets, and to contribute to the integrity and stability of Canada's financial system." 14 The Court ruled that the federal government could not enact such a scheme on its own through the powers conferred under the Constitution Act, 1867 and determined that the Canadian Securities Act was invalid with respect to its proposed "day-to-day regulation of all aspects of trading in securities and the conduct of those engaged in this field of activity." 15 The interprovincial aspects of the Canadian Securities Act were not in issue.

John B. Laskin and Darryl Patterson, in their article "Moving Forward after the Securities Act Reference: The Future of Securities Regulation in Canada," point out that the decision in the Reference leaves open the possibility that a cooperative regulatory securities scheme can exist in Canada. 16 This is what the Court said on the subject:

Such an approach is supported by the Canadian constitutional principles and by the practice adopted by the federal and provincial governments in other fields of activities. The backbone of these schemes is the respect that each level of government has for each other's own sphere of jurisdiction. Cooperation is the animating force. The federalism principle upon which Canada's constitutional framework rests demands nothing less. 17

Furthermore, Professor Michael J. Trebilcock is of the view that the decision in the Reference "leaves significant scope for unilateral federal action in the field of securities regulation, relying on the general trade and commerce power and perhaps the interprovincial and international trade and commerce power." 18

The Court's clarification of the kind of regulatory scheme that will work, constitutionally, serves to emphasize the fact that the provincial securities laws cannot effectively regulate the advertising, promotion and sale of securities across provincial lines without the participation of the federal government.

IV. Overlapping Jurisdiction Unconstitutional

Some regulators take the position that issuers of securities must follow the provincial regulations that are the most restrictive in order to be on the correct side of the law. These regulators believe that the domicile of the investor is somehow relevant to the question of regulatory jurisdiction. This position is clearly inconsistent with the court authorities on the subject of extra-provincial application of provincial laws. Just one example demonstrates that this would be legally and constitutionally unworkable. If Alberta were to prohibit investments in certain securities in an amount less then $5,000.00 and British Columbia were to prohibit an investment in the same securities in an amount greater than $5,000.00, then all investment would be foreclosed. This is not what the Constitution contemplates.

Instead, the Constitution requires the legislative assemblies in each province to take care to limit the application of provincial laws to local matters within the jurisdiction of a province. Contracts that will be concluded outside the geographical boundaries of a province do not fall under the jurisdiction of that province.

In light of this understanding of the Constitution, an issuer could establish offices and bank accounts in each jurisdiction in which they choose to offer securities so that the issuer could take advantage of the less restrictive rules that may exist in the jurisdiction where an investor is located at the time an investment is concluded. Under this approach, issuers may choose the jurisdiction with the most advantageous rules, so long as the investor is prepared to be present in such jurisdiction at the time of investment in the securities offered.

This is in the best interest of market and investors. The Constitution provides for competition amongst provinces hoping to attract issuers in the same way that competition laws provide for competition amongst issuers hoping to attract investors.

A recent decision on point is that of Justice Campbell of the Nova Scotia in Trinity Western University v. Nova Scotia Barristers' Society, 2015 NSSC 25. In that case, Justice Campbell had to address the argument from the Barristers' Society that their jurisdiction to protect the public interest allowed the Barristers' Society to "require universities in other Canadian jurisdictions to comply with Nova Scotia law, even if that law conflicted with the law of their own province" (see paragraph 178 of the decision). Justice Campbell rejected that argument in its entirety. He was of the view that there were constitutional implications associated with such a position. More importantly, he found that the Barristers' Society had "no authority" to regulate a British Columbia law school, as the Legal Profession Act could not reasonably be interpreted to grant such statutory authority (see paragraph 181 of the decision).

Courts facing attempts by securities commissions to regulate securities transactions in other provinces should follow the approach favoured by Justice Campbell. It cannot be reasonable to conclude a provincial legislative assembly intends to regulate business transactions outside the constitutional jurisdiction of that legislature.

Footnotes

1.Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, reprinted in RSC 1985, App II, No 5, s 91

2.[1968] SCR 238.

3.Ibid at 254.

4.[1971] SCR 689.

5.Ibid at 703.

6.[1979] 1 SCR 42.

7.[1978] 2 SCR 1198.

8.RSC 1970, c A-7.

9.[2005] 1 SCR 292, 2005 SCC 20.

10.RSC 1985, c F-4

11.Ibid at paras 39-41.

12.[2011] SCC 66, [2011] 3 SCR 837 [Reference].

13.Ibid at para 29.

14.Ibid.

15.Ibid at para 125.

16.John B Laskin & Darryl C Patterson, "Moving Forward after the Securities Act Reference: The Future of Securities Regulation in Canada" (2011) 1:1 Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Review 5. John Laskin and Darryl Patterson represented the Investment Industry Association of Canada as an intervener supporting the federal government's position in the Reference.

17.Reference, supra note 13 at para 133.

18.Michael J Trebilcock, "More Questions then Answers: The Supreme Court of Canada's Decision in the National Securities Reference" in Anita Anand, ed, What's Next for Canada? Securities Regulation After the Reference (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2012) 37.

Previously published on www.exemptedge.com

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
Gerald D. Chipeur QC
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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