Opsis Airport Services Inc. v. Quebec (Attorney General)
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-30 |
| Neutral citation | 2025 SCC 17 |
| Case number | 40786, 40791 |
| Judges | Wagner C.J.; Karakatsanis, Côté, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal, O’Bonsawin, Moreau JJ. |
| Decision | Unanimous – Appeals allowed; guilty verdicts set aside; statute declared inapplicable |
| On appeal from | Court of Appeal of Quebec |
Summary
The Supreme Court holds that Quebec’s Private Security Act is inapplicable to certain federal enterprises by virtue of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity.
These appeals concerned the application of a provincial statute to enterprises working in fields within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal Parliament, namely airport security and marine security. The doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity serves to protect the core of an exclusive power — either federal or provincial — from being impaired by the other level of government. It is rooted in the notion of exclusivity that appears in the text of sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Although it is constrained by principle and precedent, the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity plays an essential role in relation to federalism, because it makes it possible to balance the need for intergovernmental flexibility with the need for predictable results. The application of the doctrine depends on two conditions being met: (1) intrusion on the core of an exclusive head of power of the other level of government, and (2) impairment of the core of the exclusive head of power.
Opsis Airport Services Inc. (“Opsis”) is an enterprise that provides airport security services. It operates the emergency call centre at the Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport in Montréal. Quebec Maritime Services Inc. (“QMS”) is an enterprise that works in the international marine transportation sector. It performs loading operations on transatlantic ships out of the terminal located in La Malbaie. Michel Fillion is an employee of QMS who monitors and controls access to the port facility.
Opsis, QMS and Mr. Fillion received statements of offence charging them with having contravened the provisions of the Private Security Act (“PSA”), a statute enacted by the Quebec legislature, that required them to hold a licence to carry on a private security activity. Opsis, QMS and Mr. Fillion admitted that they had failed to comply with the requirements of the PSA by not obtaining a licence to carry on their activities. However, they contested their statements of offence on the basis that the PSA is constitutionally inapplicable to them by virtue of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity because, according to them, the PSA intrudes on an essential part of their activities falling within federal jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court has allowed the appeals of Opsis, QMS and Mr. Fillion.
The security activities carried on by Opsis and QMS fall within the core of the exclusive federal powers over aeronautics, navigation and shipping.
In a unanimous judgment, the Court began by considering the first condition of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. It found that the security activities carried on by Opsis, which relate to the safety of air transportation, fall within the core of the federal power over aeronautics under section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Opsis’s activities unquestionably fall within the core of this power because they are related to the security of air transportation itself. The application of the PSA to Opsis’s activities leads to the conclusion that there is an intrusion on the core of an exclusive head of power. In addition, the Court held that QMS’s activities at the marine terminal and the activities of its employee, Mr. Fillion, fall within the core of the federal navigation and shipping power under section 91(10) of the same Act. The application of the PSA to QMS and Mr. Fillion thus constitutes an intrusion on the core of an exclusive head of power.
Next, the Court considered the issue of impairment, the doctrine’s second condition. It found that the PSA gives the administrative body created by the provincial legislature, the Bureau de la sécurité privée, powers that enable it to exercise control over these activities, for example by suspending or cancelling a licence, issuing directives or carrying out inspections, and that impair the core of federal jurisdiction.
These impairing aspects of the PSA cannot be severed from the rest of the statute, which means that the statute must be declared wholly inapplicable to Opsis, QMS and Mr. Fillion pursuant to the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity.