Public Notices - CPABC vs CGPA Canada

Federal Authority Prevails: CGPA Canada’s National Mandate vs CPABC’s Provincial Limits

Constitutionally and legally, the CPABC Provincial Act cannot override CGPA Canada’s Federal Authority.

🔹 1. CGPA Canada is Federally Incorporated Under the NFP Act

• CGPA Canada is legally incorporated under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act (S.C. 2009, c. 23) — a federal statute.

• As a federal corporation, CGPA has the right to operate across all provinces and territories in Canada.

  
  

📜 Federal incorporation gives CGPA Canada nationwide legal personhood, enabling it to:

• Offer services

• Enter into contracts

• Certify members

• Deliver education and training

• Maintain its own governance structure

  
  

➡️ No provincial law — including the CPA Act of BC — can nullify or restrict these federal rights.

🔹 2. Section 91 vs. Section 92 — Division of Powers (Constitution Act, 1867)

Under Canada’s Constitution Act, 1867, government powers are divided between the federal government (Section 91) and provincial governments (Section 92):

🔹 Federal Jurisdiction — Section 91

Includes powers over:

• Trade and commerce

• Banking

• Criminal law

• Incorporation of companies with national objectives (e.g. s. 91(29), federal companies)

• Education and credentialing when it has national or international impact

  
  

🔹 Provincial Jurisdiction — Section 92

Covers:

• Municipalities

• Property and civil rights within the province

• Local matters

• Licensing of provincially regulated professions (e.g., CPABC regulating CPABC members)

  
  

🧠 BUT: Section 92 powers must not conflict with Section 91 powers.

🔹 3. Doctrine of Paramountcy — Federal Law > Provincial Law (When Conflicts Arise)

If a provincial law conflicts with a valid federal law, the federal law prevails and the provincial law becomes inoperative to the extent of the conflict.

This principle is called the doctrine of federal paramountcy.

✅ Example:

• CGPA Canada, under federal law, has a right to operate, train, and designate professionals across Canada.

• If CPABC tries to prevent CGPA from operating or designating members based on provincial rules, that’s a conflict.

• Result: Federal rights (CGPA’s NFP Act status) override CPABC’s local restrictions.

  
  

🔹 4. CPA Act of BC Doesn’t Claim Monopoly over the Profession

CPABC’s enabling law — the Chartered Professional Accountants Act of BC — only gives CPABC authority over its own members and registrants.

Section 46 states:

“Subject to section 47, this Act does not affect the right of a person who is not a member to practise as an accountant or auditor in British Columbia.”

✅ This confirms:

• Non-CPABC accountants can practise (like CGPA members)

• CPABC cannot restrict, fine, or interfere with federally recognized practitioners who are not its registrants

  
  

🔹 5. CGPA Canada Members Are Not CPABC Members — No Jurisdiction

CPABC only has authority to:

• Investigate, review, or discipline CPABC members, students, firms

• Conduct practice reviews of its own licensees

• Protect the public only in relation to CPABC’s services and registrants

  
  

🔒 CPABC cannot regulate or interfere with CGPA members or claim to regulate the whole profession.

🧾 Conclusion

CPABC has no legal authority to override, restrict, or invalidate the rights and operations of CGPA Canada, a federally incorporated body protected by:

• The Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act

• Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867

• The doctrine of federal paramountcy

  
  

If CPABC is misrepresenting its powers, it may be:

• Violating the Competition Act

• Engaging in deceptive marketing under the BPCPA

• Obstructing federally authorized education and credentialing

Here are several key cases where Canadian courts — including British Columbia courts — reinforced the principle that federal law overrides conflicting provincial legislation under the division of powers (Sections 91 vs. 92) and the doctrine of paramountcy. These directly support CGPA Canada’s position against undue interference from CPABC.

The following is a clear BC case demonstrating how federal law overrides provincial authority under the Section 91 vs. Section 92 constitutional framework, with the doctrine of paramountcy in action:

🔹 BC Attorney General v. Lafarge Canada Inc. (2007 SCC 23)

• Context: Lafarge wanted to build a concrete batching plant on federal port lands managed by the Vancouver Port Authority (established under the federal Canada Marine Act).

• Issue: Could the City of Vancouver’s municipal bylaws (roots in provincial powers under Sections 92(8), 92(13), and 92(26)) apply, or would federal law prevail?

• Supreme Court Outcome: SCC emphasized the doctrine of federal paramountcy:

  • Both federal and provincial laws were valid in jurisdiction and subject matter.

  • However, when provincial bylaws and federal approval conflicted, the federal law prevails, and the provincial bylaws become inoperative to that extent reddit.com+11mondaq.com+11reddit.com+11reddit.comcanlii.org.

• Relevance: This high-profile case shows that when a provincial law conflicts operationally with a federal law governing a federal undertaking, provincial law must yield — it cannot override federal authority.

  
  

🔹 R v. Jim (1915 BCSC)

• Context: Edward Jim, a member of the North Saanich band, was charged under the provincial Game Protection Act for hunting deer on a reserve.

• Outcome: BC Supreme Court recognized that Aboriginal hunting on reserves is under federal jurisdiction (s.91(24)) and overturned Jim's conviction en.wikipedia.org+2en.wikipedia.org+2decisions.scc-csc.ca+2.

• Relevance: Illustrates how federal jurisdiction over “Indians and lands reserved for Indians” legally overrides provincial laws — even older provincial legislation.

  
  

🧠 LEGAL INSIGHT

• Section 91 grants jurisdiction to the federal government (e.g., navigation, shipping, Indigenous affairs).

• Section 92 grants powers to provinces (e.g., property, civil rights, municipal matters).

• When both levels legislate validly on the same subject but in conflict, the doctrine of federal paramountcy ensures federal law prevails, rendering the conflicting provincial law inoperative in that context.

  
  

🏛️ Application to CPABC vs CGPA Scenario

• CGPA Canada is incorporated federally under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act – a federal law validly enacted under Section 91.

• If CPABC or BC law attempts to restrict CGPA’s operations, certification, or its members, that would be an operational conflict between provincial and federal laws.

• By the precedent in Lafarge v. Vancouver Port Authority, provincial authority cannot legally override such federally protected rights.

Here are several key cases where Canadian courts — including British Columbia courts — reinforced the principle that federal law overrides conflicting provincial legislation under the division of powers (Sections 91 vs. 92) and the doctrine of paramountcy. These directly support CGPA Canada’s position against undue interference from CPABC.

1. British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lafarge Canada Inc. (2007 SCC 23)

• Facts: Lafarge planned a concrete plant on federal land managed by the Vancouver Port Authority.

• Issue: Did municipal/provincial zoning bylaws apply, or did federal jurisdiction under the Canada Marine Act prevail?

• Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed that when a provincial law conflicts with federal legislation—especially regarding a federal undertaking—the provincial law is inoperative to that extent (canlii.org, alexi.com).

• Relevance:

  • Federal incorporation under the Canada Marine Act took priority over BC zoning.

  • Provinces cannot override or regulate federal undertakings or entities.

    
    

2. Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat (2001 SCC 67)

• Facts: The Law Society of BC regulated non-BC lawyers under its provincial Act.

• Ruling: The Supreme Court found that federal law defines who may practice in federal immigration tribunals, and provincial bodies cannot conflict with federal regulation .

• Relevance:

  • Reinforces that provincial regulators cannot override federal authority, even in closely related professional fields.

  • Applies directly to CGPA Canada’s federal authority versus CPABC.

    
    

3. Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon (1982 SCC 161)

• A foundational case setting out the scope of the paramountcy test:

  • Provincial and federal laws can both be valid and applicable to the same activity, provided they can operate compatibly.

  • The doctrine only arises where there is a direct conflict (e.g., one law says “yes”, the other says “no”) (decisions.scc-csc.ca, en.wikipedia.org, en.wikipedia.org, decisions.scc-csc.ca).

• Relevance:

  • If CPABC attempts to restrict CGPA’s operations, and federal law permits them, CPABC's restrictions would fail under paramountcy.

    
    

4. Canada (AG) v. BC Investment Management Corp. (2019 SCC 63)

• Involved a dispute between a provincial environmental tax and the federal Crown’s interests.

• Ruling: The Court reinforced that operational conflict suffices for paramountcy—and noted dual compliance is not enough if the provincial law frustrates federal policy (canlii.org, canlii.org).

• Relevance: Supports argument that if CPABC regulation frustrates CGPA’s federally mandated objectives, federal law prevails.

  
  

🧾 Summary Table: CPABC VS CGPA Canada

Case	Principle	Relevance to CGPA vs. CPABC
Lafarge Canada Inc. (2007)	Federal land/use rules override provincial bylaws	CGPA’s federal incorporation overrides CPABC’s provincial limits
Law Society v. Mangat (2001)	Federal practice rights override provincial regulation	Supports CGPA's federal designation rights vs. CPABC
Multiple Access (1982)	Paramountcy requires actual conflict; compatible laws stand	CPABC rules cannot bind federally valid CGPA rights
Canada v. BCIMC (2019)	Operational conflict with federal policy triggers paramountcy	CPABC rules cannot frustrate CGPA’s federally authorized operations

✅ Legal Application

• CGPA Canada, incorporated under the federal Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, has lawful nationwide authority.

• If CPABC—via provincial legislation, bylaws, or public statements—attempts to restrict CGPA’s operations, it creates an operational conflict with federal law.

• Based on Lafarge and Mangat, provincial law is rendered inoperative when it conflicts with federal law.

• The doctrinal tests from Multiple Access and BCIMC reinforce that mere overlap is not enough; incompatibility is key, and CPABC's restrictions on CGPA would meet that standard.

Federal Paramountcy and Constitutional Precedence

Under the Constitution Act, 1867, federal law prevails where provincial law conflicts. CPABC cannot override the lawful authority granted to CGPA Canada under federal statutes.

🧾 Key Supreme Court Precedents:

Case	Legal Principle	Relevance
BC (AG) v. Lafarge Canada Inc. (2007 SCC 23)	Federal jurisdiction overrides conflicting provincial bylaws	CGPA’s federal authority prevails
Law Society of BC v. Mangat (2001 SCC 67)	Provincial regulators cannot prohibit federal licence holders	CPABC cannot block federally authorized CGPA practitioners
Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon (1982 SCC 161)	Federal and provincial laws may co-exist unless in operational conflict	CPABC’s actions create such a conflict
Canada (AG) v. BCIMC (2019 SCC 63)	Operational conflict invalidates the application of provincial law	CPABC obstructs CGPA’s federal mandate

📌 Conclusion: CPABC’s conduct is inconsistent with constitutional principles and may be judicially invalidated if not restrained.

“Federal Law Prevails: CPABC Cannot Override CGPA Canada's Constitutionally Protected Authority”

Under Canada's Constitution and the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, CGPA Canada holds national legal status. CPABC’s provincial powers do not extend to federally incorporated bodies like CGPA. The doctrine of federal paramountcy ensures that when conflicts arise, federal law prevails.