Lex Pundit
Precedent & Courts

Statutory interpretation

What the words of a statute mean, read in context and in light of what the legislature was trying to do.

The idea

Most modern law is legislation, so most legal argument is about what enacted words mean. The modern approach across the common law world reads a statute's words in their ordinary sense, in their full context, and harmoniously with the statute's scheme and purpose — no single canon wins automatically.

Interpretation is where courts and legislatures meet, and the doctrines police that boundary: presumptions that statutes do not take away rights, do not act retroactively, and do not oust the courts, unless clear words say so. The legislature can always answer an unwelcome interpretation by amending the law.

An example

A statute regulates 'vehicles in the park'. Does it catch bicycles? An ambulance? Interpreting it requires the purpose — quiet? safety? — not just a dictionary.

In Canada

Canadian courts apply Driedger's 'modern principle': the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context, in their grammatical and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the scheme and object of the Act and the intention of Parliament.