Trade and Commerce -s91(2)(Trade and commerce power) is mutually exclusive with s92(13) (Property and Civil Rights) -2 branches of s91(2) : intraprov/intl T&C and “general” T&C since Citizens Insurance Cov Parsons – 92(13) – intraprovincial trade (ie. w/in the province) and s91(2) – interprovincial trade (ie btw provinces / intl) since R v Klassen the SCCstarted to uphold fedl regulation that covered some transactions occuring entirely w/in a province's boundaries (aka intraprovincial trade) Caloil v AG Can – SCCupheld fedl prohib on transportation or sale of imported oil – purpose of the Act was to protect the domestic industry in the West – prohib caught many transactions occuring solely w/in a province but upheld as “i ncidental to the administration of an extra- provincial marketing scheme” and “ an integral part of the control of imports in extraprovincial trade policy ”. cpLabatt Breweries – Fedl T&C power not able to support compositional standards for Beer under the FDA– standards imposed w/o regard for the product's movement across provl boundaries. Reaffirmed insur casesthat T&C does not authorize reg of a single trade or industry (even if it is dominated by a handful of large firms on a nationwide basis) GM v City National – Court unanimously upheld the Competition Act as a valid exercise of the (previously denied) “general” trade and commerce power. Per Dickson – Competition could not be regulated successfully if restr to interprovl trade Validity of the Act Vapor Test for a valid exercise of the “General” T& C Power: 1.presence of a “general regulatory scheme” 2.oversight by a regulatory agency 3.concern with trade as a whole rather than a particular industry and GM added 2 elements: 4.under the constitution, provinces would be incapable of enacting that type of legislation 5.failure to incl 1/more provinces in the scheme would jeopardize its successin other parts The Competition Act was valid under this test. But s31.1 of that Act also gave rise to a civil right of action (which is a s92(13) power – was s31.1Constitutionally valid for being functionally related to the Act? Validity of the Provision Funtional Connection/Integration Test GM Motors: Step 1: does impugned provison intrude on provision powers? Step 2: If so, Is the Act (or a severable part containing the provision) valid? (see test above) Step 3: If valid, is the provision sufficiently integrated w/ the scheme so as to be upheld on that basis? if major intrusion – is provision essential to the scheme? If minor intrusion – is there a functional rel'p w/ the scheme?