Alberta (Attorney General) v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

摘要

Constitutional law-Procedure in constitutional challenges - Jurisdiction of courts - General principles-Alberta adopted Preserving Canadas Economic Prosperity Act (PCEPA), but statutory devices required to make PCEPA operative had yet to be put in place - British Columbia (BC) brought action in Alberta under s. 19 of Federal Courts Act (FCA) for declaration of invalidity, claiming PCEPA improperly regulated interprovincial commerce -Alberta brought unsuccessful motion to strike proceedings, while BC brought successful motion for interlocutory injunction preventing Minister from exercising powers under PCEPA - Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that it had jurisdiction and that proceedings were not premature as PCEPA itself was challenged, not specific measure, and held declaratory judgments could be issued under s. 19 of FCA - Alberta appealed, alleging motions judge erred in finding Federal Court had jurisdiction over BC's action for bare declaration of unconstitutionally of Alberta legislation - Appeal allowed; decision set aside; Alberta's motion granted; BC's statement of claim struck - Federal Court has jurisdiction under s. 19 of FCA to entertain proceedings like BC's-In proper circumstances, interprovincial controversies that raise questions related to constitutional validity of provincial legislation fall under purview of s. 19 of FCA, given legislative history and purpose of s. 19 - Situation alleged in BC's claim, that one province was directly and openly threatening well-being of another, presented all hallmarks of "controversy" within meaning of s. 19 - However, legal test for granting declaratory relief had not been met - As licensing scheme articulated by set of regulations had yet to be put in place, no dispute of kind giving rise to declaratory relief had yet arisen, and might never arise -Fact that particular subject matter may give rise to private claims is not, in and of itself, fatal to Federal Court jurisdiction pursuant to s. 19, as long as requirements of that provision are met, i.e. there is controversy between province and Canada or between provinces.