The legislature did not define the term used "tagging" in the case of Quebec (Attorney General) v. Robitaille and the Court referred to Professor Pierre-André Côté[Interpretation of statutes, Centre for Research in Public Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Montreal, 2nd ed., Cowansville, Editions Yvon Blais, 1990, p. 243.] stating that “ Pierre Andre- Cote teaches that in these cases, methods of interpretation are helping those who need to define:
"Sub-Section 2
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE METHOD GRAMMAR
For the implementation of the grammatical method, we can make use of directives which specify the mode of application: it must give words their meaning in everyday language, 2) must give the words the meaning they had the date of adoption of the law 3) it must avoid adding under the law, or deprive them of effect.
Paragraph 1: The common meaning
As it is assumed that the author of the law will be understood by litigants is to say the entire population governed by the law, the law is deemed to be drafted in accordance with rules of language use in the population.
In particular, it must be presumed that the legislature intends the words in the same sense that the justiciable, that "Mr. All-the-world". "
[28] Further, at page 269:
"Sub-Section 2
SECOND STATEMENT: "IF THE TEXT IS LIGHT IN SELF, DO NOT SEEK FURTHER"
Under this formulation, the interpreter should first read the provision under consideration. If, on reading, the formula seems to give a clear answer to questions raised by the application of the law, then the interpreter should stop his investigations and simply apply the provision.
We are indebted to J. Tindal, in the case Susser Peerage, this formulation of the Literal Rule, which would be classic:
If the terms of the law are themselves clear and unambiguous, it is sufficient to take them in their natural and ordinary meaning. In this case, these terms are by themselves, the best expression of the intention of legislature. ""
No comments:
Post a Comment