In Bernardin v. The Municipality of North Dufferin (1891), 19 S.C.R. 581, Mr. Justice Gwynne for the majority of the Court said at p. 618:
"Now, it has been argued that as these sections authorized the municipal councils to exercise their jurisdiction over roads and bridges by by-laws, they are precluded from exercising their jurisdiction otherwise than by a by-law, and so that no road or bridge could be repaired or made fit to be travelled on unless a by-law should be first passed for the purpose. The answer to this contention is to be found in the language of Lord Justice Turner in Wilson v. West Hartlepool (1) quoted above. Affirmative words in a statute saying that a thing may be done in one way do not constitute a prohibition to its being done in another way. The word 'may' in the section of the Manitoba act enacting that the councils may pass by-laws, etc. in relation to the several purposes mentioned in the act is by the Manitoba Interpretation Act to be construed as permissive only, not as imperative. Although, therefore, a by-law is a mode by which councils may exercise their jurisdiction over roads and bridges within the municipality, still there is nothing in the above acts affecting municipalities in Manitoba which prohibits the councils from exercising their jurisdiction in any other way."
The Alberta Court of Appeal considered the Bernardin decision and applied it in Speakman v.City of Calgary (1908), A.L.R. 454. In that case the issue was whether a servant or employee engaged under a yearly employment contract with the municipality was entitled to reasonable notice of dismissal. The defendants argued that the appointment of a city official, in that case an engineer, must be by by-law. The Charter of the City provided that the council "may" pass by-laws for the appointment of officials. The Court held that because some of the terms of the Calgary Charter used "may" while others used "shall", the Bernardin decision should be applied to the interpretation of the Charter and, as a result, "neither a by-law or contract under seal of the corporation was necessary to the validity of the agreement in question".
Cited from
No comments:
Post a Comment