UNLESS there is contrary intent (Even if interferes with accrued or accruing right was there a contrary intention per BCIA s2(1)) Look for indication of a new intent in amending legislation (i.e. repeal AND replacement) Legislature intended to extinguish accrued or accruing right Factor Details Acquired, if completed the right is distinct, tangible, concrete and capable of immediate Accrued, enjoyment or effect therefore it is a legally enforceable right that others should not Incurred interfere with Accruing? Rule of effectivity/rule against tautology is it unfair for a something to be a lesser right just – because it is in progress, this also be protected? shouldn’t SCOTT Think about it narrowly it is more than a hope or expectation, it needs to be substantial – steps where the right would be inevitable given the steps already taken Substantive steps (essentially everything other than purely procedural steps where the given the facts) eventual fulfillment was inevitable a right may be said to be the events giving rise to it or the Cameron JA “before ‘accruing’, conditions upon which it depends for its existence, must have been so set in train or engaged as inevitably to give rise in due course to the right” DIKRANIAN narrow interpretation for a vested right: Affirms Scott’s using Cote’s criteria the individuals legal situation must be tangible and concrete rather than general and abstract legal situation must have been sufficiently constituted at the time of the new statute’s commencement possibility of a right is not enough NEEDS to be tangible situation must have materialized PUSKAS Very narrow! A right cannot be accrued or accruing until its eventual accrual is CERTAIN and not conditional on future events
UNLESS there is contrary intent (Even if interferes with accrued or accruing right was there a contrary intention per BCIA s2(1)) Look for indication of a new intent in amending legislation (i.e. repeal AND replacement) Legislature intended to extinguish accrued or accruing right Factor Details Acquired, Accrued, Incurred if completed the right is distinct, tangible, concrete and capable of immediate enjoyment or effect therefore it is a legally enforceable right that others should not interfere with Accruing? Rule of effectivity/rule against tautology – is it unfair for a something to be a lesser right just because it is in progress, shouldn’t this also be protected? SCOTT Think about it narrowly – it is more than a hope or expectation, it needs to be substantial steps where the right would be inevitable given the steps already taken Substantive steps (essentially everything other than purely procedural steps where the eventual fulfillment was inevitable given the facts) Cameron JA “before a right may be said to be ‘accruing’, the events giving rise to it or the conditions upon which it depends for its existence, must have been so set in train or engaged as inevitably to give rise in due course to the right” DIKRANIAN Affirms Scott’s narrow interpretation using Cote’s criteria for a vested right: the individuals legal situation must be tangible and concrete rather than general and abstract legal situation must have been sufficiently constituted at the time of the new statute’s commencement possibility of a right is not enough NEEDS to be tangible situation must have materialized PUSKAS Very narrow! A right cannot be accrued or accruing until its eventual accrual is CERTAIN and not conditional on future events
Gill%20-%20LAW%20104%20-%20Final.docx