1. Validity (vires) Analysis
   1. I. CHARACTERIZATION
      1. Consider Purpose
         1. Stated purpose
         2. Extrinsic Evidence as to purpose
            1. For instance (what kinds of evidence?)
      2. Consider Effects
         1. Legal Effects (inside 4C)
         2. Practical Effects
            1. how will law interact with other rights/laws?
            2. not normative claims or claims about "effectiveness"
         3. Effectiveness ONLY if colourability being argued.
      3. Be sure to conclude with a statement of pith and substance
   2. II. NEXT TOPIC! Delineation of Scope of Heads of Power
      1. Precedent
      2. Arguments made by the parties
   3. III. CLASSIFICATION
      1. Does the law meet the tests set out in Part II?
      2. How does Double Aspect play out in this case?
         1. You might consider Ryder's Comments on the Demise and Rise of the Classical Paradigm
      3. What other arguments are raised by the challenger?
      4. Are there big changes to past practice or "balance of federalism"?
   4. Conclude: intra vires? ultra vires?
2. Issues after Validity
   1. Necessarily Incidental or Ancillary Doctrine:
      1. Where you have a generally valid act, with a specific provision which is more intrusive and only the provision is challenged.
         1. Fit test: The tightness of the fit required between the intrusive provision and the act as a whole INCREASES as the Intrusiveness of the provision INCREASES (and vice versa)
            1. eg GM v City National: The remedial provision is intrusive but not hugely so. Therefore it must be functionally and rationally connected with the rest of the Act. SCC finds that it is.
   2. Paramountcy
      1. Is there a conflict between provincial and federal law? A two pronged test
         1. I. Express conflict "compliance with one is defiance of the other"
            1. Complying with the stricter provincial law would include complying with the federal law. NO CONFLICT. Mangat, Rothmans. Spraytech.
            2. But see Moloney (majority) for an interpretation where the impossibility of giving legal effect to both at the same time creates a conflict. Is this a different test?
         2. II. Frustration of Federal Purpose
            1. See: Mangat; Rothmans
            2. Does this also mean "where the purpose is to provide a complete code?" See Moloney (concurrence) for a positive answer. See also Lafarge. The intention is "to totally cover the field".
            3. Note Court is concerned to ensure that there is evidence of the Federal purpose see Moloney,
         3. If there is conflict, Federal paramountcy will apply: the provincial law is inoperable to the extent of the conflict
   3. Interjurisdictional Immunity
      1. You need a federal undertaking under 92(10)(a-c)+91(29) or an area of federal jurisdiction plus a valid provincial law of general jurisdiction.
         1. Does the provincial law impair a vital part of the Federal undertaking or area of jurisdiction
            1. VITAL (CORE, INTEGRAL) PART
            2. "labour relations and working conditions...an essential part of the very management and operation of " federal undertakings as defined by 91(29) and 92(10) (a-c) [which include Bell Canada] in Bell 1988 p 252
            3. "Absolutely indispensible or necessary" "not co-extensive with every element of an undertaking incorporated federally or subject to federal regulation". CWB at para 51.
            4. Not "promotion of peace of mind insurance" CWB
            5. "The location of aerodromes lies at the core of the federal aeronautics power"" COPA para 40.
            6. IMPAIR
            7. Higher than "affect" lower than sterilize
            8. must be "adverse consequence" para 48 CWB
            9. If you find impairment of a vital part, then the provincial law is inapplicable to the core od the federal undertaking and that core is permanently so protected.