Directed Research
Fall 1999
Ruth Sullivan

Administration

Class will meet in Lamoreux 115

course website:http://www.uottawa.ca/~resulliv/

I am available for individual meetings after class and by appointment
telephone at Dept. of Justice: 957-0046 at home: 241-2536
e-mail ruth.sullivan@justice.x400.gc.ca (checked daily)
resulliv@uottawa.ca (checked weekly)

If you need assistance in participating in the course electronically, you may contact Anne Vespry at anne@law-nerd.org

Texts

Sullivan, Essentials of Canadian Law: Statutory Interpretation, 1996
Materials on website
Materials on reserve

Please note that materials that are marked "on reserve" do not appear on the website. Some materials on the website are also on reserve, but this is not noted below.

Method of evaluation for 3 credits:

  • 3 short assignments (20% each) -- 60%
    • -labelling exercise 5-10 pp
    • -application problem 5-10 pp
    • -article or case comment or problem 5-10 pp
  • regular participation (in class or by journal) -- 40%

Method of evaluation for 4 credits

  • 2 short assignments (20% each) -- 30%
    • -labelling exercise 5-10 pp
    • -application problem 5-10 pp
    • 1 long assignment (25-35 pp.) 30%
    • regular participation (in class or by journal) 40%

The above suggestions may be varied to accommodate the special interests of students.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A. Judicial Task in Interpretation

Be prepared to answer the questions (in the Vault) on the following cases.

Viscount Rhondda's Claim, [1922] 2 A.C. 339 (H.L.)

Roberts v. Hopwood, [1925] A.C. 579 (CB)

Cooper v. Wandsworth Bd of Works (1863), 143 E.R. 414 (Eng. C.P.) (CB)

D. Kennedy, "Toward a Critical Phenomenology of Judging" in The Rule of Law, ed. by Hutchinson and Monahan, 1987 (R).

B. Theories that attempt to explain the judicial task

Eskridge and Frickey, "Statutory Interpretation as Practical Reasoning" (1990), 42 Stanford L. Rev. 321 (R)

Sullivan, "Statutory Interpretation in the Supreme Court of Canada" (1998) 30 U. Ottawa L. Rev.

178 (R)

C. Constitutional Framework

  • democracy = rule by elected representatives of people
  • parliamentary sovereignty
  • entrenched constitution (direct review)
  • rule of law and indirect review (direct review)
  • distinction between politics and law

A.V. Dicey, An Introduction to the Law of the Constitution, 10th ed., Macmillan Press, 1959 - . chapters 1 & 4

Joseph Raz, "The Rule of Law and its Virtue" in The Authority of Law, 1979 (R)

D. Assumptions about language and communication required by constitutional framework

  • language is a conduit for meaning
  • everyone's linguistic intuitions are the same
  • common sense is reliable
  • common sense is the same for everyone

Georgia Green, Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996, chap. 1 (R)

Lawrence Solan, "Learning Our Limits: the Decline of Textualism in Statutory Cases" (1997) 97 Wisconsin Law Rev.235-259.

Cunningham and Fillmore, "Linguistic Analyses of Judicial Decisionmaking" (1995) 73 Wash. U. Law Q. 1159-1222.

See generally Law and Linguistics Conference in (1995) 73 Wash. U. Law Q. 769-1313.

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION PROBLEMS

  • determining meaning
  • determining time frame
  • correcting mistakes
  • justifying non- application
  • resolving conflict

ORDINARY MEANING

  • what we mean by ordinary meaning
  • how ordinary meaning is established
  • how the ordinary meaning rule differs from the plain meaning rule
  • the difference between ordinary and technical meaning
  • how legal meaning fits in

A. Ordinary Meaning Rule

R. v. Thomson (1992) 89 D.L.R. (4th) 218 (S.C.C.) .

B. Establishing Ordinary Meaning

  • reading (linguistic competence & interior context of judge)
  • dictionaries
  • textual analysis of immediate (larger?) context
  • expert testimony? social science data?

Perrier v. Canada, [1995] F.C.J. No. 1571

C. Plain Meaning Rule

Excerpt from Sussex Peerage case (1844) 11 Cl Fin 85, at 143 (handout)

R. v. McIntosh, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686

R. v. McCraw (1991), 7 C.R. (4th) 314 (S.C.C.)

D. Technical Meaning

Re Witts (1982), 138 D.L.R. (3d) 555

R. v. Nova (1988), 87 N.R. 101 (F.C.A.)

CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS

  • internal vs external context
  • interior vs exterior context

Schwartz v. Canada (1996) 96 D.T.C. 6103 (SCC)

R. v. R.D.S, [1994] NSJ No 629; [1995] NSJ. No 44, No 184; [1997] SCJ No 84

PURPOSIVE AND POLICY ANALYSIS

A. Evolution of Purposive Approach

Excerpt from Heydon's case (1584), 3 Co. Rep 7a, 76 E.R. 637

s. 12 Interpretation Act

E.L.Rubin, "Law and Legislation in the Administrative State" (1989), 89 Col. L. Rev. 369-426 (R)

B. Examples

R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398

R. v. Lohnes (1992), 10 C.R. (4th) 125 (SCC)

R. v. Chartrand, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 864

C. Presumed legislative intent

  • presumptions
  • strict and liberal construction
  • special rules

Re Eastabrooks Pontiac Buick Ltd. (1982), 44 N.B.R. (2d) 201 (C.A.)

R. v. Abrahams (1983), 142 D.L.R. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.)

R. v. Paré (1987), 60 C.R. (3d) 346 (S.C.C.)

CONSEQUENTIAL ANALYSIS - AVOIDING ABSURDITY

A. Evolution of The Golden Rule

Excerpt from Grey v. Pearson (1857), 6 H.L.C. 61 at p. 106

Excerpt from River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson (1877) 2 A.C. 743 at pp. 764-5

Excerpt from Waugh v. Pedneault, [1949] 1 W.W.R. 14 (B.C.C.A.)

B. What Is Meant By Absurdity

Berardinelli v. Ontario Housing Corp. (1978), 90 D.L.R. (3d) 481 (S.C.C.)

C. Permissible Responses to Absurdity

R. v. McIntosh, supra

R. v. Monney, [1999] S.C.J. No 18 - first 28 paragraphs

Boma Manufacturing Ltd. v. C.I.B.C., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 727

TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

A. Analysis based on conventions of language and legislative drafting techniques

  • associated words
  • limited class
  • implied exclusion

R. v. Volante (1993), 14 O.R. (3d) 682 (C.A.).

R. v. Goulis (1981), 125 D.L.R. (3d) 137 (Ont. C.A.)

National Bank of Greece v. Katsinkonouris (1990), 74 D.L.R. (4th) 197 (S.C.C.)

B. Analysis Based on Legislative Drafting Conventions

  • straightforward expression
  • orderly and economical arrangement
  • parallel structuring
  • avoidance of tautology
  • uniform expression

R. v. Kelly, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 170

Re Medical Centre Apartments Ltd. (1969), 3 D.L.R. (3d) 525 (Man. C.A.)

University Hospital Bd. v. Boros (1985), 24 D.L.R. (4th) 628 (Sask. C.A.)

C. Other Language Version, Other Legal System

  • constitutional and legislative framework

Constitution Act, 1867, s.133

Constitution Act, 1982, s.18(1)

Official Languages Act

Uniform Law Conference Drafting Conventions

  • equal authenticity rule

Re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721

Cardinal v. R., [1980] 1 F.C. 141

R. v. Companie Immobilière BCN, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 865

  • bijural legislation
  • self-government agreements

D. "May" And "Shall"

Re Language Rights under Manitoba Act, 1870 (1985), 19 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.)

R. v. Harbour [1986] 3 W.W.R. 300 (F.C.A.)

R. v. Moore (1985), 49 O.R. (2d) 1 (C.A.)

DYNAMIC VS. STATIC INTERPRETATION

Hills v. Canada (A.G.), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 513

PLAUSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS, ANOMALIES, MISTAKES, AND GAPS

A. Plausible Meaning Rule

Barrette v. Crabtree Estate (1993), 101 D.L.R. (4th) 66 (S.C.C.)

Kannata Highlands Ltd. v. Kannata Valley (1987) 61 Sask. R. 292 (C.A.)

B. Anomalies, Mistakes, and Gaps

Ass. of Parents v. Minority Language School Board (1987), 40 D.L.R. (4th) 704 (N.B.C.A.)

National Farmers Union v. P.E.I. Potato Marketing Council (1989), 56 D.L.R. (4th) 753 (P.E.I.S.C.)

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATUTES AND COMMON LAW

DiPeitro v. R. (1986), 26 D.L.R. (4th) 412 (S.C.C.)

Rawluk v. Rawluk (1990), 103 N.R.321 (S.C.C.)

R. v. Gendron, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TWO OR MORE LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

A. Presumed Coherence

  • in absence of conflict, overlapping provisions are presumed to apply
  • conflict is narrowly defined

Friends of the Oldman River v. Minister of Transport (1992), 88 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.)

B. Exception: One of the Provisions Is Meant To Be Exhaustive

Re British Columbia Teachers' Federation (1985), 23 D.L.R. (4th) 157 (B.C.C.A.)

C. Strategies For Resolving Conflict

  • explicit or implicit legislative solution
  • implausible interpretation
  • paramountcy rules

R. v. Greenwood (1992), 7 O.R. (3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.)

Canada v. Schmidt , [1987] 1 S.C.R. 500

TERRITORIAL OPERATION AND APPLICATION

Goodman v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Bd, [1981] 2 W.W.R. 749

Hunt v. Lac d'Amiante, (1993), 161 N.r. 81 (S.C.C.)

TEMPORAL OPERATION AND APPLICATION

A. Presumption Against Retroactive Application

Gustavson Drilling Ltd. v. M.N.R., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 271

B. Retroactive vs. Immediate and General Application

A. G. Quebec v. Expropriation Tribunal, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 732

C. Presumption Against Interfering with Vested Rights

National Trust Co. v. Larsen (1989), 61 D.L.R. (4th) 270 (Sask. C.A.)

NON-APPLICATION STRATEGIES

  • avoid absurdity
  • apply presumption
  • evoke equity

EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT

Canada v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689