Bank of Montreal v Marcotte, 2014 SCC 55 is a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. Together with Amex Bank of Canada v. Adams, 2014 SCC 56 and Marcotte v. Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, 2014 SCC 57 (collectively known as the "Marcotte trilogy"), it represents a further development in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence on the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and paramountcy, together with significant clarifications on the law concerning class actions in the Province of Quebec, which is similar to that in operation in the common law provinces.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Bank of Montreal v Marcotte (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Bank of Montreal v Marcotte, 2014 SCC 55 is a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. Together with Amex Bank of Canada v. Adams, 2014 SCC 56 and Marcotte v. Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, 2014 SCC 57 (collectively known as the "Marcotte trilogy"), it represents a further development in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence on the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and paramountcy, together with significant clarifications on the law concerning class actions in the Province of Quebec, which is similar to that in operation in the common law provinces. (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
Unanimous
| - Rothstein and Wagner JJ (en)
|
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
docket
| |
LawsApplied
| - (en)
- Civil Code of Quebec (en)
|
citations
| |
history
| - APPEALS from , setting aside in part Leave to appeal granted: (en)
|
ratio
| - #The law permits a collective action where the representative does not have a direct cause of action against, or a legal relationship with, each defendant.
#Different obligations flow from whether conversion charges are qualified as credit charges or net capital.
#The doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity does not apply. While lending, broadly defined, is central to banking, it cannot be said that a disclosure requirement for certain charges ancillary to one type of consumer credit impairs or significantly trammels the manner in which Parliament's legislative jurisdiction over bank lending can be exercised.
#The doctrine of paramountcy is not engaged. The basic rules of contract cannot be said to frustrate the federal purpose of comprehensive and exclusive standards, and the general rules regarding disclosure and accompanying remedies support rather than frustrate the federal scheme. (en)
|
has abstract
| - Bank of Montreal v Marcotte, 2014 SCC 55 is a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. Together with Amex Bank of Canada v. Adams, 2014 SCC 56 and Marcotte v. Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, 2014 SCC 57 (collectively known as the "Marcotte trilogy"), it represents a further development in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence on the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and paramountcy, together with significant clarifications on the law concerning class actions in the Province of Quebec, which is similar to that in operation in the common law provinces. (en)
|
case-name
| - Bank of Montreal v Marcotte (en)
|
decided-date
| |
heard-date
| |
NotParticipating
| |
ruling
| - Appeals by the Bank of Montreal, Citibank Canada, the Toronto‑Dominion Bank and the National Bank of Canada dismissed and appeal by Réal Marcotte and Bernard Laparé allowed in part. (en)
|
SCC
| |
gold:hypernym
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |