Quebec v. LacombeQuebec (Attorney General) v. Lacombe, 2010 SCC 38,  2 SCR 453
FACTS: Clash between provincial zoning laws and federal jurisdiction over aeronautics. Lacombe and Picard are directors of a business involving air excursions. They obtained a licence from the Fed Govt under the Aeronautics Act to build an aerodrome on Gobeil Lake. People with cottages on Gobeil lake do not want the disturbance of the airplanes, so complained to municipality. In 2006 the municipality obtained an injunction from the SCC ordering the defendants to cease aviation activities on Gobeil Lake as the operation of the aerodrome and associated business violated the zoning for Gobeil Lake.
DECISION: The impugned provision is ultra vires the province (fails Ancillary Powers Doctrine)
·First: Is there an intrusion? Yes
·Second: Are the zoning laws valid provincial legislation?
oDetermine the “matter” to see what head of power it falls under
§Pith and Substance: The provincial purpose for enacting was land use and planning (which is a valid provincial scheme)
§Land Use and Planning (zoning) is valid provincial subject matter
§Note the true purpose: location of aerodromes, which is a matter of federal jurisdiction, specifically comments made at a municipal council meeting show the more specific purpose was prohibition of aerodromes on Gobeil Lake - Colourability
·Third: Ancillary Powers Doctrine
oAn intruding provision may be saved if it is rationally and functionally connected to a valid provincial legislative scheme
oApplication: the impugned provision (by law 260) is not sufficiently integrated with the legislative scheme; this lack of connection is evidenced by the lack of correlation between the nature of the areas affected and the ban on aerodromes (parcel of land next to the one in question is very similar but doesn’t have ban)