Statutory Interpretation case

The Code prohibits, among other things, the publication in a newspaper of any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation which ridicules, belittles, or otherwise affronts the dignity of persons because of their race, creed, religion, colour, sex and so on. A board of inquiry established under the Code had found the "The Red Eye," a tabloid published by the University of Saskatchewan engineering students, to be in violation of the Code outlined above. Two editions had contained sexist material affronting the dignity of women. As a result, the board had ordered a series of corrective orders.

Mr. Justice Milliken, on the Court of Queen's Bench, had previously decided that the board of inquiry established under the Code "did not deal solely with the question whether the objectionable material in each edition enhanced discrimination against wo

. . .
how that in every case it is the duty of the court to review the following: (1) the words themselves; (2) their immediate context; (3) the purpose of the statute as manifested throughout the legislation; and (4) extrinsic evidence of parliamentary intent, to the extent admissible" (Nitikman, 1992, p. C-103). In a bottom line analysis, Nitikman (1992) maintains that, even though we must in some cases look outside the Act to discover Parliament's intent, we must not look outside the Act in every case (p. C-104). Other weakness in the principles of interpreting statutory code are evidenced by the very subjective nature of interpretation. Who is to infer the "true" reason of the remedy, if reason is defined as "intent" behind a statutory code? As the Human Rights Commission would no doubt argue, the elimination of discrimination would be at the heart of Parliament's intent. Discrimination, as defined by Part II of the Code, "may be taken to mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference which is founded on . . . race, religion, colour, sex and so on--and which in purpose or effect impairs the enjoyment of persons or their rights" (Commission v. Engineering Students, 1989, p. 615). As Boyd (1994) has stated,
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Bill Rights, Engineering Students, Constitution Act, Queen's Bench, Rights Code, Sopinka Butler, Justice Milliken, Rights Commission, Justice Morse, Criminal Code, boyd 1994, statutory interpretation, human rights, engineering students, bill rights, freedom expression, rights commission, canadian law, human rights commission, rights freedoms, commission engineering, commission engineering students, reader ed boyd, course reader ed, ed boyd burnaby,
Approximate Word count = 2875
Approximate Pages = 12 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Statutory Interpretation case