expressly mention something means it was impliedly excluded courts have limited power reluctant to read-in rebuttable! absurdity cannot apply if it displaces context analysis sometime mentions one out of excessive Children’s Aid caution; other not mentioned b/c implicit Children’s Aid if wanted to exclude would do so explicitly Beyond internal coherence in the scheme of the act, there should be vertical and horizontal coherence. HORIZONTAL COHERENCE refers to other statutes – referential If any other statutes are referentially incorporated (through incorporation defns etc) should look to these statutes in particular to Authority to RI is – ensure coherence b/c legislature by RI implies commonality BCIA s44 Other relevant assumes legislature is unified entity that is consistent “one statutes (similar voice” subject matter aka pari materia) Driedger suggests that any differences in wording in statutes Columbia River pari material might suggest differences in intended meaning, scope or effect. (b/c diff statutes have diff intentions thus diff meanings for words) Parallel Legislation Might apply if areas of concurrent jurisdiction btwn feds/prov Bell ExpressVu RISK: rationale of a unified entity with one voice does not apply Look at other jurisdictions legislation in Merk (3-35) Merk Binne (maj) – Useful to look at parallel provisions and territorial legislation, CHRC LeBel and – identifies and that Cromwell JJ supports Sullivan’s interpretation comparison of statutes with same subject matter is instructive (CHRC 3-48) There is a true conflict with statutes require to do conflicting IF CONFLICT things BTWN ENACTMENTS court emphasizes that if you can comply with both there is no conflict Presumptions to apply to deal with conflict: newer is better (later enactment prevails over previous) Levis v Fraternite de specific statute (more detailed) will prevail over general Policiers statute (too broad) specificity> time enacted (earlier, specific act prevails over later general act) VERTICAL COHERENCE - enforcing legal hierarchy Paramountcy Constitution> Human Rights Statutes > Statutes > Sub Leg> If conflict higher –
expressly mention something means it was impliedly excluded courts have limited power reluctant to read-in rebuttable! absurdity cannot apply if it displaces context analysis sometime mentions one out of excessive caution; other not mentioned b/c implicit if wanted to exclude would do so explicitly Children’s Aid Children’s Aid Beyond internal coherence in the scheme of the act, there should be vertical and horizontal coherence. HORIZONTAL COHERENCE – refers to other statutes referential incorporation If any other statutes are referentially incorporated (through defns etc) – should look to these statutes in particular to ensure coherence b/c legislature by RI implies commonality Authority to RI is BCIA s44 Other relevant statutes (similar subject matter aka pari materia) assumes legislature is unified entity that is consistent “one voice” Driedger suggests that any differences in wording in statutes pari material might suggest differences in intended meaning, scope or effect. (b/c diff statutes have diff intentions thus diff meanings for words) Columbia River Parallel Legislation Might apply if areas of concurrent jurisdiction btwn feds/prov RISK: rationale of a unified entity with one voice does not apply Look at other jurisdictions legislation in Merk (3-35) Useful to look at parallel provisions and territorial legislation, identifies and supports Sullivan’s interpretation that comparison of statutes with same subject matter is instructive (CHRC 3-48) Bell ExpressVu Merk – Binne (maj) CHRC – LeBel and Cromwell JJ IF CONFLICT BTWN ENACTMENTS There is a true conflict with statutes require to do conflicting things court emphasizes that if you can comply with both there is no conflict Presumptions to apply to deal with conflict: newer is better (later enactment prevails over previous) specific statute (more detailed) will prevail over general statute (too broad) specificity> time enacted (earlier, specific act prevails over later general act) Levis v Fraternite de Policiers VERTICAL COHERENCE - enforcing legal hierarchy Paramountcy Constitution> Human Rights Statutes > Statutes > Sub Leg> If conflict – higher
Gill%20-%20LAW%20104%20-%20Final.docx