Fall 2018 1c
I sat this exam last Fall and got 1c wrong. In my solution I talked about how a single insurer would mean no innovation and no price competition and will add to social burden etc. Looking at sample answer it seems they are specifically looking at legal aspect of such proposition. Can someone help me what clue was there in the question that I should have seen to work out that the examiner is asking about legal aspect of proposition?
Comments
When I took that exam, I miss-read this one and thought it was just one province and I think I referred to the BC case.... oops. This is another interesting twist on the question and if it didn't specifically refer to Canada then it would be a very good logical place to go.
The official answer guide states:
Which seems similar to what you are saying.
Few points: 1. MOST of the time A,B,C are related in some way so we should be talking about "ultra-vires" vs. "intra-vires" - so C should relate to authority given to province vs. federal (with a few exceptions).
Two, evaluation of insurance proposals (like, TRIA, flood, PACICC, etc.) are part of section II - so we're a little bit early in the game (most first questions relate to government law) - similar to this point question #1 normally relates to authority given (landmark cases are later in the exam as well). They've thrown a few curve balls in a times, but try to do the questions in a way that has you working through the exam in "sections"
Three, it would be illegal for the federal government to do so. So the question of "innovation", "price" competition social burden are irrelevant, because the proposal would be struct down by the supreme court of Canada as soon as it started (as ultra-vires).
Thank you. Makes sense.