the court can interpret a federal statute so as not to interfere
with a provincial statute that interpretation is to be preferred
(Western Bank, at para. 75).
 For the reasons that follow, I find that the Applicant’s submissions regarding the doctrine of paramountcy have no merit.
The Trade-Marks Act
 In September of 2002, the Applicant applied for the trade-
mark “ROYAL DEMARIA ‘CANADA’S ICEWINE SPECIALISTS’ & DESIGN”
(the “Trademark”). Initially, the VQAO opposed the application.
However, in 2005 it withdrew its opposition and advised the Appli-
cant in writing that it would continue to enforce its regulatory
scheme regarding the use of regulated terms regardless of whether
the Applicant was granted the Trademark. In particular, the Appli-
cant would be permitted to use the Trademark on VQAO approved
icewines, but not on any other wines it manufactured. On May 24,
2005, the Trademark was granted to the Applicant.
 Since the Applicant is no longer a member of the VQAO
and all the approvals on its wines have been revoked, it can no
longer use its Trademark.
 The Applicant submits that the VQAO’s position on
this issue is untenable, as it directly conflicts with two pieces of
federal legislation — the Trade-marks Act and the CAP Act.
 The Applicant submits that s. 19 of the Trade-Marks Act
grants it the exclusive right to use its registered trade-mark
throughout Canada, including the use of the term “icewine”. Further, s. 45(3) of the Trade-Marks Act provides that if a trade-mark
is not used over a specified period of time, the registration of the
trade-mark can be expunged. On the other hand, the VQAO,
under the authority it has been granted under the Act, prohibits
the Applicant from using its trade-mark. According to the Applicant, this creates an operational conflict between the two Acts.
The federal Act grants it a right, which it must use or lose; the
provincial legislation prohibits it from exercising that right.
 The Applicant also argues that the VQAO’s actions under
the provincial VQAO scheme frustrate the purpose of the federal
Trade-Marks Act — namely, to protect the rights acquired
through trade-mark registration and to ensure that those rights
are used on a continuing basis.
 In OPSEU v. Ontario (Attorney General),  2 S.C.R. 2,
 S.C.J. No. 48, at paras. 19-20, the Supreme Court of
Canada confirmed that the Trade-Marks Act serves two purposes:
( i) to protect consumers; and ( ii) to facilitate the effective branding of goods. Accomplishing these two purposes does not require