The decision in "Re Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission et al. and Engineering Students' Society, University of Saskatchewan et al." illustrates significant strengths and weaknesses of the rules and principles of statutory interpretation. In 1989, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission appealed a decision, limited to questions of law alone, that the Engineering Students' Society had not violated Section 14(1) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, S.S. 1979, c. S-24.1. In other words, the Commission wanted to show that despite Mr. Justice Milliken's decision overturning the board's claims, violations had, in fact, occurred.
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 women in the ways or means prohibited by the Code" (Commission v. Engineering Students, 1989, p. 612). For this reason, he determined that the board had erred in law.
Because interpretations of legislative intent depend on a careful analysis of the language used in statutory codes, rules and principles for both the construction and interpretation of such codes are carefully observed. In this case of the Commission v. Engineering Students, differences in in...