|
Statutory Interpretation - "Define". Alford v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Alford v. Canada (Attorney General) (SCC, 2026) the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal, this brought against the allowing of the Crown's Ontario CA ruling that "held that s. 12 of the NSICOP [SS: 'National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act'] Act is intra vires Parliament’s legislative authority under s. 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867.".
Here the court considers the meaning of 'define' in a constitutional interpretation context:[52] The parties disagree over what it means to “define” parliamentary privilege. The ordinary and grammatical meaning of the word “define” is “to say what something is and/or what something is not”, “describe or explain the scope, essential qualities, etc. of (something)” or “determine or indicate the boundary or extent of (something)” (C.A. reasons, at para. 43; Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2nd ed. 2004), at p. 395).
[53] When asked to interpret the word “define” in s. 35 of the Victoria Constitution Act, 1855 (U.K.), 18 & 19 Vict., c. 55 — a provision with a comparable purpose to s. 18 in the Australian colony — the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that it was equivalent to “declare” these privileges (Dill v. Murphy, (1864), 1 Moo. N.S. 487, 15 E.R. 784, at p. 794). Accordingly, I agree with the Attorney General of Canada’s interpretation of the ordinary meaning of the word “define” in s. 18 as being that Parliament has authority “to set or declare the contours or scope of its parliamentary privileges, immunities and powers” (R.F., at para. 28).
|
