Asked by Prabhjot Bansal on Jul 13, 2024
Verified
In Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court of Canada
A) concluded that the federal and provincial legislation were not in conflict. One simply went further than the other.
B) concluded that the federal and provincial legislation were in conflict, with the result that paramountcy would apply.
C) held that only the provincial legislation was invalid.
D) held that only the federal legislation was invalid.
E) held that both the federal and provincial legislation were invalid.
Paramountcy
The principle that when a matter is addressed by both valid federal and provincial legislation and there is a conflict, the federal legislation takes precedence.
Supreme Court of Canada
The highest court in Canada, serving as the final appellate body in the Canadian legal system.
- Comprehend the methodological and material disparities among various law categories, including statutory law, case law, and fundamental law.
Verified Answer
RG
Rushell GrahamJul 15, 2024
Final Answer :
A
Explanation :
The Supreme Court of Canada in Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan concluded that the federal and provincial legislation were not in conflict; rather, one set of legislation simply went further than the other, indicating a complementary rather than conflicting relationship between the two levels of legislation.
Learning Objectives
- Comprehend the methodological and material disparities among various law categories, including statutory law, case law, and fundamental law.
Related questions
Which of the Following Will Override a Particular Province's Common-Law ...
Assume the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)prosecutes Someone for Insider ...
A State Statute Making Murder a Crime Is an Example of ...
The House of Representatives and the Senate in the U ...
A Law Prohibiting Employment Discrimination Is an Example of Which ...