body: Source: [*Introduction to Law in Canada*](http://emond.ca/introduction-to-law-in-canada.html) (2014). p. 173 Bottom.
  
  
  
  > 
  > Superior Courts
  > ---------------
  > 
  > 
  > Like the inferior courts, the superior courts fall into two categories: provincial/territorial 
  >  and federal. 
  > 
  > 
  > ### Provincial and Territorial
  > 
  > 
  > The **provincial superior courts**, as noted above, are constituted under [section 92(14)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_92(14)_of_the_Constitution_Act,_1867#CITEREFWhyte1985) of 
  >  *the Constitution Act, 1867,* with their judges appointed ***federally*** under section 96 of the 
  >  Act. Because of this they are sometimes referred to as **section 96 courts**. Why are the 
  >  judges in these provincial courts appointed federally? Though these are provincial courts, 
  >  they can, under section 92(14), hear not only matters falling under provincial legislative 
  >  power (for example, motor vehicle accident cases) but also `some matters falling under federal legislative power (for example, bankruptcy cases)`. (See Chapter 5 for a discussion of 
  >  how legislative power is divided under Canada's Constitution.) The fact that the judges in 
  >  these provincial superior courts are federally appointed ensures balance. Balance is needed because of the power these provincial courts have to adjudicate certain federal matters. 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  1. Why did the framers allow provincial superior courts to adjudicate `some matters falling under federal legislative power (for example, bankruptcy cases)`? Why didn't the framers confine to the Federal Court?
  2. Why blur the distinction between provincial v. federal jurisdiction?
  
  
  
title: Why did s 92(14) (of the Constitution Act, 1867) permit Provincial Superior Courts to adjudicate some matters falling under federal legislative power?