Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The case centered on whether Quebec’s Private Security Act (PSA) could constitutionally apply to federally regulated entities operating in aviation and marine sectors.

• Opsis and QMS challenged the application of the PSA based on the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity under the Constitution Act, 1867.

• Both companies were found to have breached the PSA by not holding required provincial security licenses, yet they argued the Act was constitutionally inapplicable to their activities.

• The central legal test examined whether the provincial law intruded on and impaired the “core” of exclusive federal powers over aeronautics and shipping.

• The Supreme Court concluded that aspects of the PSA impaired federal jurisdiction by giving a provincial body final regulatory authority over federally governed security operations.

• Consequently, the Court declared the PSA inapplicable to the appellants and awarded them legal costs in both appellate and Supreme Court proceedings.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background of the dispute

Opsis Airport Services Inc. is a private security company that operated the emergency call center at the Montréal-Trudeau International Airport. Quebec Maritime Services Inc. (QMS), another private company, conducted port security operations and longshoring activities at a terminal in La Malbaie. Michel Fillion, an employee of QMS, was responsible for controlling access at the port facility. All three parties—Opsis, QMS, and Fillion—were served with statements of offence for violating Quebec’s Private Security Act (PSA), which required them to hold provincial licenses for security-related activities. They did not hold the required licenses.

Rather than contesting the factual breaches, the appellants argued that the PSA was constitutionally inapplicable to them. Their core argument was that their operations fell exclusively under federal jurisdiction—namely, Parliament’s authority over aeronautics and maritime navigation—and that the PSA impaired this jurisdiction by imposing provincial licensing requirements and oversight.

Procedural history

In the Opsis case, the Court of Québec initially rejected the constitutional challenge and accepted guilty pleas. The Quebec Superior Court reversed that finding, holding the PSA inapplicable due to impairment of federal aeronautics powers. The Quebec Court of Appeal then overturned the Superior Court, reinstating the convictions and holding that no significant impairment had occurred.

In the QMS and Fillion case, the Court of Québec accepted the constitutional argument and acquitted the defendants. That acquittal was set aside by the Superior Court, which ruled there was no impairment. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Superior Court and maintained the convictions.

Legal analysis by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Canada focused its analysis on the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity, which protects the "core" of exclusive federal or provincial powers from impairment by the other level of government. The Court held that both airport and marine security activities fall within the core of federal jurisdiction under sections 91 and 91(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867. It found that the PSA’s regime—particularly the powers of the Bureau de la sécurité privée to issue directives, impose conduct standards, and revoke licenses—effectively allowed a provincial agency to regulate federally governed operations.

Importantly, the Court emphasized that these powers were not severable from the PSA’s overall legislative framework. Because the impairing provisions were integral to the licensing regime, the PSA could not be partially applied or read down selectively.

Final ruling and remedy

The Court allowed both appeals. It declared the Private Security Act constitutionally inapplicable to Opsis, QMS, and Fillion. It restored the Superior Court’s ruling in favor of Opsis and the original acquittals in favor of QMS and Fillion, albeit replacing the lower court’s declarations with a broader reading down of the entire statute as inapplicable. Legal costs were awarded to the appellants in both the Supreme Court and Quebec Court of Appeal. No damages were awarded, as the case concerned constitutional validity, not monetary claims.