Desktop version

Home arrow Law arrow Implementing the Cape Town Convention and the Domestic Laws on Secured Transactions

Source

III National Reports

Les suretes sur des aeronefs en droit canadien, la Convention relative aux garanties internationales portant sur des materiels d’equipement mobiles et son Protocole aeronautique

Frederique Sabourin

Abstract On April 1, 2013, the Convention and the Protocol entered into force in Canada in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador and the Northwest Territories. On October 1, 2014, these instruments have become applicable to Prince Edward Island and Yukon. They are applicabled across Canada since July 1st, 2016, following a new declaration of Canada, this time concerning New Brunswick.

In many ways, the fact that Canada has become party to the Convention and the Protocol did not alter the provincial, territorial or federal law that already existed. In other respects, the entry into force of these instruments in Canada has required legislative changes. The Convention and Protocol have thus been implemented federally and in all provinces and territories, because of the constitutional division of powers and the need to implement international treaties to which Canada is a party.

At the moment of Canada's ratification, Alternative A of Article XI of the Protocol was declared applicable. The federal implementation act that was adopted has been modified before its entry into force to give the force of law in particular to this article and to repeal the amendments made to various federal statutes to that effect, that would have become redundant. Therefore Canada qualifies for favorable financial conditions under Appendix II of the Sector Understanding on Export Credits for Civil Aircraft (ASU).

F. Sabourin (*)

Ministere de la Justice du Quebec, Quebec, QC, Canada e-mail: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 59

S. Kozuka (ed.), Implementing the Cape Town Convention and the Domestic Laws on Secured Transactions, Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law 22, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-46470-1_3

Canada has not made the declaration that would have allowed him to exclude the application of the Convention for internal operations. The Convention and the Protocol has thus enabled the creation of a single registry for securities in aircraft objects covered by the Convention and the Protocol, which was not the case before.Resume

Le 1er avril 2013, la Convention et le Protocole sont entres en vigueur au Canada en Alberta, en Colombie-Britannique, au Manitoba, en Nouvelle-Ecosse, au Nunavut, en Ontario, au Quebec, en Saskatchewan, a Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador et aux Territoires du Nord-Ouest. Le 1er octobre 2014, ces instruments sont devenus applicables a l’lle-du-Prince-Edouard et au Yukon. Ils s’appliquent dans tout le Canada depuis le 1er juillet 2016, a la suite d’une nouvelle declaration du Canada concernant cette fois le Nouveau-Brunswick.

A plusieurs egards, le fait pour le Canada de devenir partie a la Convention et au Protocole n’a pas modifie le droit federal, provincial ou territorial existant. A d’autres egards, l’entree en vigueur de ces instruments au Canada a necessite des modifications legislatives. La Convention et le Protocole ont donc fait l’objet de lois de mise en oeuvre au federal et dans toutes les provinces et territoires, a cause de la repartition constitutionnelle des pouvoirs et de la necessite de mettre en oeuvre les traites internationaux auxquels le Canada est partie.

Au moment de sa ratification, le Canada a declare applicable la Variante A de Particle XI du Protocole. La loi federale de mise en oeuvre qui avait anterieurement ete adoptee a ete modifiee avant son entree en vigueur pour donner force de loi notamment a cet article et pour abroger les modifications introduites dans differen- tes lois federales a cet effet et qui auraient alors fait double emploi. Le Canada beneficie donc de conditions financieres favorables en application de l’Appendice II de l’Accord sectoriel sur les Credits a l’Exportation d’Aeronefs Civils (ASU).

Le Canada n’a pas fait la declaration qui lui aurait permis d’exclure de l’application de la Convention les operations internes. La Convention et le Protocole ont donc per- mis la creation d’un registre unique pour les garanties sur les biens aeronautiques couverts par la Convention et le Protocole, ce qui n’etait pas le cas jusqu’alors.

 
Source
Found a mistake? Please highlight the word and press Shift + Enter  
< Prev   CONTENTS   Next >

Related topics