as the "bankruptcy quartet" stand for the following propositions about how the Act interacts with provincial legislation: provinces cannot create priorities between creditors or change the scheme of distribution on bankruptcy under s. 136(1) of the Act; while provincial legislation may validly affect priorities in a non-bankruptcy situation, once bankruptcy has occurred section 136(1) of the Act determines the status and priority of the claims specifically dealt with in that section; if the provinces could create their own priorities or affect priorities under the Bankruptcy Act this would invite a different scheme of distribution on bankruptcy from province to province, an unacceptable situation; and the definition of terms such as "secured creditor", if defined under the Bankruptcy Act, must be interpreted in bankruptcy cases as defined by the federal Parliament, not the provincial legislatures. Provinces cannot affect how such terms are defined for purposes of the Act. in determining the relationship between provincial legislation and the Bankruptcy Act, the form of the provincial interest created must not be allowed to triumph over its substance. The provinces are not entitled to do indirectly what they are prohibited from doing directly. there need not be any provincial intention to intrude into the exclusive federal sphere of bankruptcy and to conflict with the order of priorities of the Bankruptcy Act in order to render the provincial law inapplicable. It is sufficient that the effect of provincial legislation is to do so. However, there are instances where provincial law will continue to apply: where the insolvent person is one that plainly falls within provincial jurisdiction (such as a municipal institution), a province has authority to compel reorganizations of bodies and debt obligations where a stay under federal law has been lifted in order to allow proceedings to take place, a province can still impose a moratorium on proceedings that fall under provincial law Issues concerning the extent of federal paramountcy continue to come before the Supreme Court of Canada. In the 2015 "paramountcy trilogy," the boundaries were further explored: An Alberta Act was held neither to disqualify a person from driving a motor vehicle or to suspend the registration of such vehicles, because of an unsatisfied personal injury debt that had been discharged in bankruptcy. An Ontario Act governing the collection of tolls charged by 407 ETR was held not to apply to bar a discharged bankrupt from renewing his license plates upon payment