AG(ON) vs. Reciprocal

AndrewLAndrewL
in McD.Intro

I tried to read the battlecard but do not clearly understand.

  1. What parliament? Of Canada or ON?
  2. What did they amend? I do not understand the sentence
  3. What was the ruling? Was amending intra-vire or not?

Comments

  • Staff-T1Staff-T1
    1. Parliament of Canada
    2. Amended the criminal code and implemented a new federal insurance act
    3. Ultra-vires. Privy council decided that the amendments to the criminal code were invalid. It was seen as an attempt to to regulate the contracts of insurance which was not within federal jurisdiction

    I recommend reading page A2-5 of the McDonald Paper if you would like to dive deeper

  • FoTheGreatFoTheGreat

    Hi just to clarify here as I do not have the SK. A google search on the AG(ON) v Reciprocal case gave me a case where it concludes newer types of insurance, such as reciprocal insurer, is also intra vires to provinces.

    Then did a search on the Federal's attempt to criminalize the insurers accepting risks without Federal license, a case called "the second insurance reference case" came up?

  • Staff-TSStaff-TS

    I'm not familiar with that case and suggest focusing on what's specifically mentioned in the syllabus and BattleActs Wiki. The Insurance Reference Case (1916) is referenced there, which may or may not be what your searching dug up.

    There are many legal cases that build on or relate to each other, but diving into all of them can quickly become a rabbit hole beyond the scope of what's required for the exam.

Sign In or Register to comment.