The Supreme Court of Canada rules on Federal Jurisdiction and Airport Security: The OPSIS Case
Opsis Airport Services Inc. v. Quebec (Attorney General) involved a constitutional dispute in which Opsis Airport Services Inc. challenged the application of Quebec’s Private Security Act (PSA) to its airport operations. Opsis argued that the provincial legislation encroached on exclusive federal jurisdiction over aeronautics by regulating how private security services are conducted at airports[1].
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) held that Quebec’s legislation regulating private security was inapplicable to Opsis and Quebec Maritime Services (QMS), which was involved in a concurrent case on similar grounds[2].
Facts of the Case
Opsis Airport Services Inc. ("Opsis") is a federal company that operates the emergency call centre at Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport in Montréal. Opsis was charged by the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions in Quebec for operating an enterprise that carried on private security activities without holding a licence, contrary to the PSA. Opsis admitted to carrying on private security activities without the required licence but challenged the constitutional applicability of the PSA, relying on the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity.
Understanding the Doctrine of Interjurisdictional Immunity
The case turned on the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity (IJI), a constitutional principle used to resolve jurisdictional conflicts between federal and provincial governments. It protects the "core" of jurisdiction exclusively assigned to one level of government from interference by the other.
The SCC reaffirmed the two-step test for applying IJI[3]:
Does the provincial law trench on the core of a federal power?
If so, does the impact seriously impair the exercise of that federal power?
Application to Airport and Port Security
For the first step, the Court found that airport security—where it relates to the safety of air transportation—is clearly at the core of the federal aeronautics power. The Court emphasized that civil aviation depends fundamentally on robust security measures, quoting prior decisions affirming that secure access is essential to federal undertakings like airports and harbors.
This ruling is significant. Although the Court didn’t elaborate extensively, it effectively expanded the recognized scope of the aeronautics power to include certain private security services. This opens the door for other support services essential to air transport to be considered part of the federally protected core.
However, the decision does not create a new protected category; rather, it extends the already acknowledged area of “aviation security.” Given Opsis’s deep operational integration with Montréal–Trudeau International Airport, including its role in managing an on-site call centre, the SCC found it fell clearly within the federal domain.
Why the PSA Was Inapplicable
The SCC held that the PSA’s licensing regime for private security agencies risked impairing federal control over core aeronautics and maritime operations. Under the PSA, Quebec's “Bureau de la Sécurité privée” has the authority to issue, suspend, or cancel licences and impose operational directives.
The Court found that these powers were not incidental; they created a real possibility that a provincial body could interfere in matters critical to federal transportation infrastructure. Because the PSA’s enforcement and licensing scheme was integral to the statute, the SCC declared the legislation wholly inapplicable to Opsis and QMS.
Implications and Observations
The decision reinforces a broader reading of federal jurisdiction—particularly in areas like aviation and maritime security. While the SCC warned against overusing IJI, it affirmed that where provincial laws interfere significantly with federally regulated operations, those laws can be constitutionally inapplicable.
Importantly, the Court did not require proof of actual harm. It ruled that the potential for serious interference—based on the statutory framework alone—was enough to justify the application of IJI.
Key Takeaways for Businesses
IJI remains a live doctrine. The SCC has confirmed that provincial laws cannot regulate the core functions of federally regulated sectors if doing so would impair them.
Federal jurisdiction may include private contractors. Firms integrated into federally controlled operations, such as airport security providers, may fall within federal jurisdiction even if they are private entities.
Provincial licensing may not apply. If a provincial law governs how federally mandated operations are carried out—especially with enforcement powers—it may be found constitutionally inapplicable.
But IJI will be applied cautiously. The SCC reiterated that IJI is an exceptional remedy and should not be invoked routinely, especially where precedent is limited or effects are minimal.
The Opsis decision clarifies and affirms the limits of provincial authority in areas of exclusive federal control. It highlights that provincial legislation cannot impose rules on the core operational aspects of federally regulated activities like airport and port security. Businesses operating in these areas should assess the applicability of provincial requirements carefully and, where appropriate, consider whether constitutional protections apply.
Disclaimer: This post is for general information only and isn’t legal advice. For advice about your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer at Avra Law.