Case StudyWARD v. Canada

Federal Government Action Federal government action was correct in charging in Mr.

Ward. Section 91 of Constitution clearly states that control of

fisheries is a federal responsibility Section 27 of the Marine Mammal Regulation provides

meaning regarding Section 91 Pith and Substance is meant to protect viability and integrity

of fisheries– intra vires of Federal government Fisheries Act meant to preserve fish stocks for the entire

nation so it cannot merely be a provincial responsibility

Should Federal powers supersede provincial?

Federal power to regulate fisheries should supersede provinces authority to license and regulate trade

National issue- main issue is preservation of fish stocks and control harvesting in the seas

Without federal control, stocks would be overfished

Reference re. Secession of Quebec1998

Reference re. Secession of Quebec1998 Question 1

The Constitution is more than a series of rules or principles, and includes the ideals of federalism, democracy, constitutionalism, the rule of law and respect for minorities

These values have evolved since Confederation and have become significant components of the Canadian nation. If Quebec seceded unilaterally, it would put aside these values and relationships

Reference re. Secession of Quebec1998Question 1 (cont’ed) A majority vote for secession in one province does not provide a

pretext for unilateral secession. However, if such a vote took place, the federal government and the other provinces would be obliged to recognize the will of Quebecs

Reference re. Secession of Quebec1998 Question 2

Quebec does not fit the interpretation of international law regarding secession, since they are not an oppressed or colonized people

Quebec cannot complain that its people have been denied access to pursue their political development

Quebec thus does not meet required criteria for secession

Does not rule out the possibility of unilateral secession

Reference re. Secession of Quebec1998

Question 3 Decided there was no conflict between

international and domestic law