Extrinsic aids and the interpretation of statutes.
This thesis considers a question of increasing significance in Canada today--the use of extrinsic aids in the interpretation of statutes. The thesis argues that the principles adopted by the courts that allow the admission of certain aids to interpretation for limited purposes only and that do not a...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Others |
| Published: |
University of Ottawa (Canada)
2009
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10393/5581 http://dx.doi.org/10.20381/ruor-14432 |
| Summary: | This thesis considers a question of increasing significance in Canada today--the use of extrinsic aids in the interpretation of statutes. The thesis argues that the principles adopted by the courts that allow the admission of certain aids to interpretation for limited purposes only and that do not allow the admission of legislative history in non-constitutional cases create artificial distinctions amongst the various different types of aids. These distinctions serve to obscure rather than elucidate the process of interpretation by the courts. There are no compelling reasons for the courts to reject outright the admission of legislative history in non-constitutional cases. Parliamentary materials should therefore be admissible in accordance with the same rules as those applied to other interpretative aids. To this end, the thesis examines some of the interpretative aids used by the courts and the way in which they are used. Part I examine some of the aids found in the printed version of the statute. Part II examines a group of aids that have been classified as part of the general knowledge and experience of the judge. Part III looks at the way in which the courts use related acts and treaties whilst Part IV deals with the contentious area of legislative history, including Commission reports. (Abstract shortened by UMI.) |
|---|