To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Constitutional law — Extraterritoriality — Jurisdiction

(00:00:10) Reasons for Judgment: Wagner CJ and Jamal J (Karakatsanis, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and O’Bonsawin JJ concurring)
(00:00:20) I. Overview – 1
(00:07:32) II. Background – 12
(00:13:11) III. Decisions Below – 22
(00:13:14) A. Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal – 22
(00:15:10) B. Superior Court of Quebec – 24
(00:16:43) C. Court of Appeal of Quebec – 27
(00:16:46) (1) Majority – 27
(00:19:41) (2) Concurrence – 31
(00:22:14) IV. Issues – 35
(00:22:28) V. Analysis – 36
(00:22:30) A. The Standard of Review – 36
(00:24:44) B. The Relationship Between the C.C.Q. and Special Statutes – 40
(00:27:52) (1) The Preliminary Provision of the C.C.Q. – 42
(00:33:04) (2) Special Laws May Complement or Derogate From the C.C.Q. – 51
(00:35:01) (3) The Court of Appeal Erred in Its Methodology for Determining When the C.C.Q. Applies – 55
(00:48:35) C. The C.C.Q.’s General Rules for the International Jurisdiction of Quebec Authorities – 73
(00:48:42) (1) Introduction – 73
(00:49:53) (2) The C.C.Q. Does Not Give the FMAT Jurisdiction Over the Appellants – 74
(01:02:11) D. The Quebec Securities Scheme’s Special Rules for the FMAT’s Jurisdiction – 92
(01:09:08) E. The Territorial Reach of Provincial Legislation Is Interpreted in Accordance With This Court’s Decision in Unifund – 103
(01:09:15) (1) This Court’s Decision in Unifund – 103
(01:14:38) (a) The Unifund Test Concerns Constitutional Applicability, Not Constitutional Validity – 112
(01:15:47) (b) The Unifund Test Functions as a Principle of Statutory Interpretation – 113
(01:17:28) (c) The Unifund Test Relates to Prescriptive Legislative Jurisdiction – 115
(01:19:21) (d) The Unifund Test Is Part of a Family of “Real and Substantial Connection” Tests – 117
(01:24:09) (2) Interpreting the Special Jurisdictional Rules of the Quebec Securities Scheme in Light of Unifund – 124
(01:25:55) F. The Quebec Securities Scheme Applies to the Out-of-Province Appellants – 126
(01:27:01) (1) There Is a Sufficient Connection Between Quebec and the Appellants – 127
(01:29:55) (2) The Requirements of Order and Fairness Are Satisfied – 131
(01:32:41) (3) The FMAT’s Adjudicatory Jurisdiction Flows From the Province’s Prescriptive Legislative Jurisdiction – 136
(01:33:38) VI. Conclusion – 137

(01:34:12) Dissenting Reasons: Côté J.
(01:34:17) I. Overview – 139
(01:36:59) II. Facts and Procedural Context – 144
(01:40:09) III. Analysis – 149
(01:44:45) A. Distinction Between the Constitutional Applicability of Legislation and the Adjudicative Jurisdiction of a Court or Tribunal – 157
(01:53:29) B. This Dispute Concerns the FMAT’s Territorial Jurisdiction – 165
(02:00:31) C. The C.C.Q.’s Rules on the International Jurisdiction of Quebec Authorities Apply to Administrative Proceedings Before the FMAT – 176
(02:22:38) D. No Provision of the C.C.Q. Gives the FMAT Jurisdiction Over the Appellants – 200
(02:23:52) (1) Article 3134 C.C.Q. – 203
(02:24:18) (2) Article 3148 Paragraph 1(3) C.C.Q. – 204
(02:26:47) (3) Article 3136 C.C.Q. – 208
(02:28:51) IV. Conclusion – 212