terpretation regarding the scope and intent of the Human Rights Code caused a favorable decision for the Commission to be overturned by Mr. Judge Milliken of the Court of Queen's Bench. What principles of statutory interpretation lead to such a judicial reversal?
The phrase from the Code, "or other representation," can be interpreted according to two principles of interpretation, both in Latin. The applicable phrases are "ejusdem generis" ("of the same kind") and "noscitur a sociis" ("a thing is known by its companions"). Because "the courts cannot assume that the legislature has made errors or omissions" (Boyd, 1994, p. 63), a literal interpretation of statutes, with guidance from principles such as those above, is mandatory.
Boyd (1994) states that the "ejusdem generis" principle dictates, "ambiguous phrases or clauses will derive their meanings from the specific context in which they appear (p. 65). Therefore, a look at the phrase, "or other representation," cannot be sprung from its immediate context. In the Commission v. the Engineering Students document (1989), Mr. Justice Morse is cited as contending, "the words 'notice, sign, symbol, emblem,' as used in the Act, constitute a genus or specific class and give rise to the application of the 'ejusdem generis' rule in order to determine the meaning which is to be given to the words "other representation" (p. 625).
If the "ejusdem generis" principle of statutory interpretation is applied, it would appear that, since a newspaper is not like a notice, sign, symbol, or emblem, it is not to be grouped with signage--emblematic representations or notices in the form of a sign. Consequently, no violation of the Human Rights Code has occurred.
In order for the principle of "noscitur a sociis"
to apply to the above example, it would be necessary to transpose the phrases "general word" and "specific words," to yield the same conclusion as above. This is because the "associ...