Legislative Text
| Author | John Mark Keyes/Wendy Gordon |
| Pages | 89-106 |
Legislative Text
Canadian courts have accepted that (as stated in EA Driedger’s
Modern Principle of Interpretation) words in legislation are to be
read in their ordinary and grammatical sense. is refers to the
meaning they have both as individual words (lexical) as well as in
relationship to each other in groups (sentences, clauses, and phrases)
as a matter of grammar or syntax. e sentence, “e hunter eats
shoots and leaves” illustrates lexical ambiguity in that shoots and
leaves can be verbs or nouns. Syntactic ambiguity is illustrated by
the Groucho Marx quip: “is morning I shot an elephant in my
pyjamas. How he got into my pyjamas, I dunno.”
Lexical Analysis
e courts presume law-makers intend their words to be under-
stood in their ordinary sense. is has both a practical and a legal
basis. Practically speaking, using words in their ordinary sense is
an eective means of communicating to a wide audience. Legally
speaking, the maxim “ignorance of the law is no excuse” assumes
people are capable of understanding the law and must do so. Legis-
lation written in language to be understood in its ordinary sense
supports this assumption.
DRAFTING, INTERPRETING, AND APPLYING LEGISLATION
However, there is an exception to the ordinary meaning
approach: words with a technical meaning (including legal mean-
ing) will be given that meaning instead. It too responds to the need
to communicate eectively with those whom the legislation aects;
it applies when legislation deals with technical matters likely to
concern only a small portion of the general public. is section
considers each of these types of meaning and then looks at how
groups of words are interpreted.
Ordinary Meaning
Ruth Sullivan has characterized ordinary meaning in legislation as:
[T]he reader’s first impression meaning, the understanding that
spontaneously comes to mind when words are read in their immedi-
ate context — in the words of Gonthier, J, “the natural mean-
ing which appears when the provision is simply read through.”
e reader referred to here is an “ordinary reader” or, as Sullivan
elsewhere describes this person, a “competent language user.” How-
ever, this notion of ordinary meaning is as complex as language
itself and entails many variabilities. When interpreting and apply-
ing legislation, it cannot be determined simply by asking yourself
what words mean to you.
e meaning and usage of words in a particular language often
vary from one place to another. English in Canada is not exactly the
same as in the United Kingdom or the United States. For example,
dierent words are used for many p arts of an automobile (a “trunk” in
Canada is a “boot” in the United Kingdom; “pop” in Canada is “soda”
in the United States). Variations also exist within Canada (a “cottage”
in southern Ontario is a “camp” in Quebec and northern Ontario).
Words most often have more than one possible meaning, as a
glance through any dictionary demonstrates. Although their pos-
sible meanings are often related, they sometimes have quite dierent
meanings (for example, a “file” can be either a tool for reducing the
size of something or a place for putting documents).
To continue reading
Request your trial