Browse regulations

This document lists 89 sections (including subsections) that have been formally repealed through various Statutory Orders and Regulations (SORs) dating from 1988 to 2014. It contains no active regulatory text, only repealed provisions.

The document has no current legal force or effect—it is merely an inventory of repealed provisions. Maintaining such a repealed sections list creates unnecessary clutter in the regulatory corpus, potentially confusing readers about what is actually in force, and imposes administrative costs for retention and reference without any benefit to liberty, prosperity, or regulatory clarity.

Establishes the oath of allegiance and oath of office for the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories, requiring these oaths to be sworn before the Clerk or Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council.

Constitutional framework for democratic governance requires formal oaths of office to ensure accountability and legitimacy of public officials. Without this regulation, there would be no standardized process to verify the Commissioner's commitment to uphold their duties and the Crown, potentially undermining the territorial government's authority and public trust.

Document lists sections 1-19 of a regulation all marked as repealed in 2014 (c. 2, s. 69). No substantive regulatory text remains; this is a shell of repealed provisions.

Regulation is entirely repealed and obsolete. Keeping repealed laws creates legal confusion, wastes administrative resources, and misleads the public. The original provisions would have imposed unnecessary restrictions that were already recognized as harmful.

Regulation appears to be already repealed as of 2014 (c. 2, s. 68). The document provides no substantive details beyond the repeal notation.

Already repealed and therefore obsolete. No longer in force; any review is moot.

All sections (1-23) are repealed. The regulation contains no active provisions and was fully repealed by SOR/2014-275, s. 111.

Completely obsolete with no legal effect. Keeping repealed text on the books adds bureaucratic clutter and potential confusion without any benefit. The regulation's original flaws (which justified repeal) are now moot, but maintaining the empty shell is pointless.

Document listing multiple repealed regulatory sections (1-16, 2.1, 6.1) that were revoked by SOR/99-362 and SOR/2013-204. Contains no current legal provisions.

Already repealed regulations create legal uncertainty and administrative burden with zero benefit. Keeping obsolete text wastes resources and confuses stakeholders. Full deletion aligns with regulatory clarity and reduces state footprint.

Government indemnity program for travelling exhibitions with minimum total value of $500,000, covering loss/damage to objects and appurtenances. The Minister applies cultural and museological criteria, sets deductibles based on total value (from $30k-$700k), and imposes coverage limits. Includes detailed application, claims, appraisal and arbitration processes.

Government should not compete in insurance markets; this creates moral hazard, crowds out private solutions, picks cultural winners, and uses taxpayer funds to subsidize risk for high-value exhibitions, distorting the market. The intended benefit of protecting cultural artifacts could be achieved through private insurance or self-insurance consortia without unintended consequences like dependency and bureaucratic expansion.

This regulation establishes procedural requirements for customs determinations and re-determinations of origin, tariff classification, and value for duty under the Customs Act. It defines notice requirements to importers, owners, duty payers, and certificate holders, sets a five-year window for further re-determinations, and specifies who may appeal decisions.

Canadians would be worse off if this regulation was deleted because it provides essential procedural protections for importers and businesses engaged in international trade. Without these notice requirements, importers would be unable to know or challenge customs determinations affecting their goods, creating uncertainty and potential unfair assessments. The five-year window ensures timely resolution of disputes while the appeal provisions protect legitimate commercial interests from arbitrary customs decisions.

These are repealed regulations from the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, which were officially removed from the statute books in 2013 (with one section repealed in 2008).

Regulations are already repealed and obsolete. Maintaining repealed regulations creates unnecessary legal complexity and costs for businesses that must navigate outdated provisions. Repealed regulations should be permanently removed from the books to reduce regulatory burden and eliminate confusion.

The regulation consists of 8 sections (1 through 8), all marked as repealed by Statutory Orders and Regulations (SOR/2013-159 and SOR/2004-117). These appear to be former provisions of the Canada Grain Regulations that have been formally revoked.

All sections are already repealed and have no legal effect. Keeping this repealed regulation on the books creates unnecessary complexity, confuses the regulatory landscape, and imposes maintenance costs without any benefit. The original provisions had sufficient flaws to warrant repeal, and there is no justification for maintaining dead letter.

This license grants TransAlta Utilities long-term water power rights at Kananaskis and Horseshoe Falls on the Bow River, with rental payments, operational controls, government inspection powers, and reclamation obligations.

Maintains government monopoly over water resources, distorts investment through arbitrary rental revisions, grants ministers discretionary inspection and cancellation powers, creates regulatory uncertainty, and treats water as public property rather than private property, stifling competition and misallocating capital.

Aircraft access regulations for Canadian national parks and reserves, controlling takeoffs/landings to protect ecological integrity and public safety, with permit requirements for specific parks and designated landing locations.

Restricts liberty and property rights, creates bureaucratic barriers to tourism and exploration, imposes unnecessary permit costs and delays. Environmental and safety goals could be achieved through market mechanisms, liability rules, or private management without limiting access to remote areas.

This regulation imposes mandatory fees on Ontario hog producers marketing hogs in interprovincial or export trade: $0.20 per weanling hog (under 56kg) and $0.95 per all other hogs. Fees are collected by the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board (a marketing board) either through deduction or direct remittance, funding the board's activities. It applies to most of Ontario with some regional exemptions.

This regulation enforces a subsidy-funded marketing board that restricts free trade and distorts the pork market. The mandatory fees extracted from producers represent a tax on voluntary exchange, funding a board that likely controls production quotas and marketing—classic supply management that artificially raises consumer prices, reduces supply, and creates barriers to entry. The unseen costs include deadweight loss from suppressed competition, reduced incentives for efficiency and innovation, and regulatory capture where the board serves entrenched producer interests rather than market demands. Canada's interprovincial trade barriers of this sort are more restrictive than many international ones, harming both producers and consumers for the benefit of a centralized marketing apparatus.

A regulation consisting of 15 sections, all of which have been repealed by SOR/2013-198, s. 16. The original substantive content is not available in the provided text—only repeal notations remain, indicating the entire regulation was officially revoked in 2013.

The regulation is already repealed and has no legal effect. Keeping references to repealed regulations creates unnecessary clutter in the regulatory framework, increasing complexity and confusion for legal practitioners, businesses, and citizens trying to determine the current state of the law.

Regulations 1 and 2 were repealed in 2013, indicating they were deemed unnecessary or ineffective and have been removed from the regulatory framework.

Already repealed in 2013, suggesting they were obsolete or flawed, and their removal did not harm Canadian prosperity or liberty.