General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. City National Leasing
Canada Supreme Court
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 641 (1989)
- Written by John Reeves, JD
Facts
City National Leasing (City National) (plaintiff) sued General Motors of Canada Ltd. (General Motors) (defendant) under § 31.1 of the Combines Investigation Act (the act). City National alleged that General Motors discriminated against City National in favor it its competitors by providing its competitors with support for low-interest car loans. The act, passed by the Parliament, created a civil cause of action—similar to a tort—allowing the recovery of damages as a result of price discrimination. The act applied to all industries evenly as part of a general regulatory scheme over trade in general, subject to a regulatory agency’s oversight. The scheme, furthermore, applied to all provinces and was of such a nature that the failure to include one of the provinces within the scheme would hinder its successful operation in the rest of the country. The provinces could not themselves create such a regulatory scheme. General Motors argued that § 31.1 of the act was invalid because it was an unconstitutional exercise of Parliament’s powers. According to General Motors, only the legislatures of the provinces could create a private, civil cause of action. City National argued that the act was a valid exercise of Parliament’s trade and commerce power. Review was sought in the Canada Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dickson, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
