Statute is Silent: Difference between revisions
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
==Cross v. Sullivan, 2003 CanLII 44082 (ON SC)<ref name="Cross"/>== | ==Cross v. Sullivan, 2003 CanLII 44082 (ON SC)<ref name="Cross"/>== | ||
[13] I also note that the National Defence Act creates no civil remedy for any breach thereof. As the statute is silent as to civil remedies, this court should not create one. (see The Queen (Can.) v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, 1983 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205. | [13] I also note that the National Defence Act creates no civil remedy for any breach thereof. As the statute is silent as to civil remedies, this court should not create one. (see <i>The Queen (Can.) v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, 1983 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205.</i><ref name="Saskatchewan"/> | ||
[14] I conclude that to the extent that the claim by the Plaintiff is based upon breach of statutory duty, it is not tenable at law. Therefore, to the extent that the proposed amendments by the Plaintiffs to the Amended Statement of Claim refer to the breach of a statutory duty, leave to amend the Amended Statement of Claim is not granted. | [14] I conclude that to the extent that the claim by the Plaintiff is based upon breach of statutory duty, it is not tenable at law. Therefore, to the extent that the proposed amendments by the Plaintiffs to the Amended Statement of Claim refer to the breach of a statutory duty, leave to amend the Amended Statement of Claim is not granted. | ||
<ref name="Cross">Cross v. Sullivan, 2003 CanLII 44082 (ON SC), <https://canlii.ca/t/6m33>, retrieved on 2023-05-09</ref | <ref name="Cross">Cross v. Sullivan, 2003 CanLII 44082 (ON SC), <https://canlii.ca/t/6m33>, retrieved on 2023-05-09</ref> | ||
<ref name="Saskatchewan">The Queen (Can.) v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, 1983 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1983] 1 SCR 205, <https://canlii.ca/t/1lpdb>, retrieved on 2023-05-09</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 23:43, 9 May 2023
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-10-01 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 2196 |
| Page Categories: | |
| Citation: | Statute is Silent, CLNP 2196, <>, retrieved on 2024-10-01 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2023/05/09 |
Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076
Re Sidley, 1938 CanLII 68 (ON SC)[1]
...
The law that is applicable is the common law of England, superimposed upon which is the statute, and where the statute conflicts with the common law, the statute must prevail, and where the statute is silent on any matter, the common law should prevail.
...
Cross v. Sullivan, 2003 CanLII 44082 (ON SC)[2]
[13] I also note that the National Defence Act creates no civil remedy for any breach thereof. As the statute is silent as to civil remedies, this court should not create one. (see The Queen (Can.) v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, 1983 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205.[3]
[14] I conclude that to the extent that the claim by the Plaintiff is based upon breach of statutory duty, it is not tenable at law. Therefore, to the extent that the proposed amendments by the Plaintiffs to the Amended Statement of Claim refer to the breach of a statutory duty, leave to amend the Amended Statement of Claim is not granted.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Re Sidley, 1938 CanLII 68 (ON SC), <https://canlii.ca/t/g1fdm>, retrieved on 2023-05-09
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Cross v. Sullivan, 2003 CanLII 44082 (ON SC), <https://canlii.ca/t/6m33>, retrieved on 2023-05-09
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 The Queen (Can.) v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, 1983 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1983] 1 SCR 205, <https://canlii.ca/t/1lpdb>, retrieved on 2023-05-09
