From: “The national securities regulator and judicial Stockholm Syndrome”, Emmett McFarlane, MacLeans, Dec. 22, 2011.
[A]dherence to an 1881 JCPC decision—a ruling by a group of English judges an ocean away well over a century ago—that took a questionable stance on the balance of powers between the provinces and federal government in the first place is certainly questionable.
As the Court acknowledged today, the JCPC decided that a literal interpretation of the words “the Regulation of Trade and Commerce” in our 1867 Constitution was “inappropriate.” Literally.
Except, the court isn’t adhering to an 1881 decision (Citizens Insurance v Parsons), they are adhering to a 1989 decision, which adheres to a 1983 decision, which adheres to a 1977 decision, which agrees that Federal power over trade and commerce suggested by the 1881 decision is fundamentally valid.
Any first year law student could get this one. Yeeesh.