Interpreting a Municipal Bylaw: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "Category:By-Laws") |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:By-Laws]] | [[Category:By-Laws]] | ||
===[http://canlii.ca/t/j2nfp Potusek v. Township of Alnwick-Haldimand, 2019 ONSC 5677 (CanLII)]=== | |||
[22] I agree with the judge below that the task of interpreting a municipal bylaw, like statutes, involves both a broad and a purposive approach. Section 64 of the Legislation Act, 2006, SO 2006 c 21, sch F provides that statutes are to be given a “fair, large and liberal interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects”. In [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqwt Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC)], the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed the modern approach to statutory interpretation as follows: | |||
::'''Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.''' | |||
[23] In [http://canlii.ca/t/1kg3l Croplife Canada v. Toronto (City), 2005 CanLII 15709 (ON CA)], the Court of Appeal stressed that the approach to interpreting municipal bylaws is one of large and purposive construction. Moreover, it said that courts ought to be constrained in finding a bylaw invalid so as not to impinge on municipal democracy. | |||
.. | |||
Revision as of 17:04, 23 July 2020
Potusek v. Township of Alnwick-Haldimand, 2019 ONSC 5677 (CanLII)
[22] I agree with the judge below that the task of interpreting a municipal bylaw, like statutes, involves both a broad and a purposive approach. Section 64 of the Legislation Act, 2006, SO 2006 c 21, sch F provides that statutes are to be given a “fair, large and liberal interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects”. In Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC), the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed the modern approach to statutory interpretation as follows:
- Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.
[23] In Croplife Canada v. Toronto (City), 2005 CanLII 15709 (ON CA), the Court of Appeal stressed that the approach to interpreting municipal bylaws is one of large and purposive construction. Moreover, it said that courts ought to be constrained in finding a bylaw invalid so as not to impinge on municipal democracy.
..
