Which case limited federal jurisdiction over employment law to industries of national, international, or inter-provincial importance?

• A. R v. Smith
• B. Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider
• C. Caron v. Ontario
• D. Health and Safety v. Canada

Answer: (B)

In Canadian constitutional law, the federal power to regulate employment is not unlimited; Parliament can regulate employment only in industries that have national, international, or interprovincial significance. Most employment regulation is left to provinces, because everyday work and workplaces are typically provincial in scope, not crossing borders.

Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider is the leading case that articulates this limitation. It clarifies that the federal authority over employment matters applies to industries whose activities have cross-border or national importance, not to purely local or provincial industries. In that decision, the court treats the regulation of employment in a local municipal utility as a matter for provincial jurisdiction, since it lacks the necessary interprovincial or national dimension. This establishes the principle that federal employment regulation is confined to industries with broader reach.

So, this case is the best fit for the idea that federal jurisdiction over employment is limited to those industries with national, international, or interprovincial significance. The other cases address different constitutional questions or contexts and do not establish this specific limitation in the federal–provincial division of powers.