翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Manitoba Highway 30
・ Manitoba Highway 31
・ Manitoba Highway 32
・ Manitoba Highway 34
・ Manitoba Highway 39
・ Manitoba Highway 3A
・ Manitoba Highway 4
・ Manitoba Highway 41
・ Manitoba Highway 42
・ Manitoba Highway 44
・ Manito Township, Mason County, Illinois
・ Manito, Albay
・ Manito, Illinois
・ Manitoba
・ Manitoba & Northwestern Hockey Association
Manitoba (AG) v Manitoba Egg and Poultry Association
・ Manitoba (computer chip)
・ Manitoba (disambiguation)
・ Manitoba (horse)
・ Manitoba 100
・ Manitoba Aboriginal and Northern Affairs
・ Manitoba Act
・ Manitoba Advanced Education and Literacy
・ Manitoba Agricultural Museum
・ Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives
・ Manitoba Antique Automobile Museum
・ Manitoba archaeological regulations
・ Manitoba Arts Council
・ Manitoba Association of Registered Respiratory Therapists
・ Manitoba Aviation Council


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Manitoba (AG) v Manitoba Egg and Poultry Association : ウィキペディア英語版
Manitoba (AG) v Manitoba Egg and Poultry Association

''Manitoba (AG) v Manitoba Egg and Poultry Association'' (the Manitoba Egg Reference) () S.C.R. 689 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the Trade and Commerce power under section 91(2) of the ''Constitution Act, 1867''. The decision was the result of a growing political debate known as the "chicken and egg war" where Quebec and Ontario enacted protectionist legislation for the egg and poultry industry preventing Manitoba from selling their eggs and poultry products in those provinces. To much of the public's surprise the Court struck down a provincial statute regulating the marketing of eggs. The case somewhat contradicted the precedent case of ''Carnation Co. v. Quebec Agricultural Marketing Board'', () S.C.R. 238 which held that provincial law that has an incidental effect on other provinces is still valid.
The Court held that even though there was no direct evidence showing that there was extraprovincial effect of the provincial law, the potential effect was sufficient to find the law ultra vires. The Court found that control of imports was essential to the provincial legislative scheme even though the law made no distinction between eggs produced inside or outside of the province. The Court distinguished the case from the ''Carnation'' decision by the fact that the Manitoba regulations intended to provide regulation of inter-provincial trade while in ''Carnation'' the law only has the ''effect'' of regulating inter-provincial trade.
In the aftermath of the decision, all 11 governments, the 10 governments of the provinces and the federal government, entered an agreement with the federal government which arranged a federal egg marketing scheme which created quotas for each of the provinces, and charged tariffs for eggs sold outside of the province.
==See also==

* ''Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v Richardson''
* ''Reference Re Agricultural Products Marketing''
* List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Richards Court through Fauteux Court)

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Manitoba (AG) v Manitoba Egg and Poultry Association」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.