Statutory Interpretation: Purview of the Judiciary October 2, 2007.
-
Upload
sherman-parsons -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Statutory Interpretation: Purview of the Judiciary October 2, 2007.
Statutory Interpretation: Purview of the Judiciary
October 2, 2007
General approaches..
Plain meaning vs golden rule “Four corners” vs extrinsic aids
(eg legislative history/evol Textualists v. intentionists v.
normativists
Types of Interpretation Issues
Disputed meaning Static v dynamic Non application, or “reading down” Gaps
Finding the Preferred Meaning
1. Ordinary Meaning 2. Technical Meaning 3. Shared Meaning Analysis 4. Original Meaning 5. Plausible Meaning
Presumptions about Drafting
Straightforward expression Uniform Expression No tautology/redundancy Internal coherence Expressio unio est exclusio alterius Noscitur a sociis Limited class, read down The Legislature would have said X
Rules Based on Drafting Conventions
Eg “may” vs “shall” “In accordance with ‘prescribed’ Numbers, subsections Rely on shared meaning, understanding of
prose by the drafters and readers of the text
Rules that Introduce Values: Strict and Liberal Construction
Presumptions of Legislative Intent Re:
1. Compliance with Charter, aboriginal rights, international agreements
2. Where legislation interferes with individual rights, strict construction(penal)
3. Where benevolent purpose, liberal construction (remedial)
Rules to Permit Changes to Text
Where obvious drafting error “Strained” interpretation to avoid absurd
consequences Where interpretation would violate
important fundamental principle
De Witts and Attorney General for British Columbia
Horse Racing Rules and Regulations
No objection allowed on age or sex
Statutory def’ns “horse” “age” but not sex
Ordinary Meaning vs. Technical Meaning
Sex interpreted with technical meaning..Why?
R. v. Daoust
462.31(1) Every one commits an offence who uses, transfers the possession of, sends or delivers to any person or place, transports, transmits, alters, disposes of or otherwise deals with, in any manner and by any means, any property or any proceeds of any property with intent to conceal or convert that property or those proceeds, knowing or believing that all or a part of that property or those proceeds was obtained or derived directly or indirectly as a result of
(a) The commission in Canada of an enterprise crime offence or a designated substance offence; or
(b) An act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an enterprise crime offence or a designated substance offence
Interpretation
No actus reus.
No transfer
What does this mean?
Why not?
What rules are invoked?
R. v. Chartrand
Section 281Every one who, not being the parent, guardian or
person having the lawful care or charge of a person under the age of fourteen years, unlawfully takes, entices away, conceals, detains, receives or harbors that person with intent to deprive a parent or guardian, or any other person who has the lawful care or charge of that person, of the possession of that person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years
Issue
What is the issue? What rules/approaches are invoked?
Conflicting Interpretations
You are counsel (groups of 4)who wishes to appeal the outcome.
licorice -- De Witt smarties– Daoust other sugary thing –Chartrand1. Develop an alternative interpretation of the provision
at issue.2. Specify clearly the approach/rules on which you rely.3. Develop an argument as to why your approach is
preferable