Law Midterm Studyguide
Law Midterm Cases
Citizens Insurance v. Parsons Citizens Insurance v. Parsons was an 1881 decision, which established the test to determine governmental jurisdiction. The constitutional issue in this case concerned the validity of the Ontario Fire Insurance Policy Act. Parsons owned a hardware store in Orangeville, which was destroyed by fire one evening. Insured by Citizens Insurance, Parsons asked the company to cover him for his loss. Citizens Insurance refused to pay out on the basis that Parsons failed to comply with the conditions that had been written into the insurance contract. Parsons argued that the conditions failed to comply with provisions in the Ontario Fire Insurance Policy Act. Citizens Insurance argued that the Ontario law is invalid, as it imposes a contract with insurance companies – an aspect of trade and commerce that falls to the jurisdiction of the federal government. Parsons, however, argued that this was an issue of civil and property rights. This case went to trial, and eventually went to the JCPC, who acknowledged that there was a contradiction between S. 91(2) and S. 93(13). The JCPC then decided that although there was a possibility for overlap, there should be some way of determining which level of government has jurisdiction over what subject matter. This lead to the creation of the Parson’s Test. In the Parsons Test, you must consider if the dispute falls within one of the jurisdictions in Section 92 of the provinces. If the answer is no, then the jurisdiction automatically falls to the federal government. If the answer is yes, does it also fall under the power of Section 91? If the answer is no, then it is a provincial area of jurisdiction. However, if the answer is yes to both questions, then the courts must reconcile the constitution in some way as to figure out which level of government has responsibility for jurisdiction.
s. 91(2), dealing with trade and commerce, is limited to the following areas:
1) International
Citizens Insurance v. Parsons Citizens Insurance v. Parsons was an 1881 decision, which established the test to determine governmental jurisdiction. The constitutional issue in this case concerned the validity of the Ontario Fire Insurance Policy Act. Parsons owned a hardware store in Orangeville, which was destroyed by fire one evening. Insured by Citizens Insurance, Parsons asked the company to cover him for his loss. Citizens Insurance refused to pay out on the basis that Parsons failed to comply with the conditions that had been written into the insurance contract. Parsons argued that the conditions failed to comply with provisions in the Ontario Fire Insurance Policy Act. Citizens Insurance argued that the Ontario law is invalid, as it imposes a contract with insurance companies – an aspect of trade and commerce that falls to the jurisdiction of the federal government. Parsons, however, argued that this was an issue of civil and property rights. This case went to trial, and eventually went to the JCPC, who acknowledged that there was a contradiction between S. 91(2) and S. 93(13). The JCPC then decided that although there was a possibility for overlap, there should be some way of determining which level of government has jurisdiction over what subject matter. This lead to the creation of the Parson’s Test. In the Parsons Test, you must consider if the dispute falls within one of the jurisdictions in Section 92 of the provinces. If the answer is no, then the jurisdiction automatically falls to the federal government. If the answer is yes, does it also fall under the power of Section 91? If the answer is no, then it is a provincial area of jurisdiction. However, if the answer is yes to both questions, then the courts must reconcile the constitution in some way as to figure out which level of government has responsibility for jurisdiction.
s. 91(2), dealing with trade and commerce, is limited to the following areas:
1) International