|
Statutory Interpretation - Applies to Regulations Too. Ontario (Health Insurance Plan) v. K.S.
In Ontario (Health Insurance Plan) v. K.S. (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here from a Divisional Court dismissed appeal, that from an allowed Health Services Appeal and Review Board appeal, and that from a refusal by the General Manager of OHIP to authorize a specific form of gender affirming surgery.
Here the court applies (and adapts) standard statutory interpretation to the Health Insurance Act regulations:(a) The Principles of Interpretation and the Standard of Review
[45] The first ground of appeal raised by the General Manager turns on the proper interpretation of the Schedule of Benefits, which is part of the regulations under the Act.
[46] Text, context and purpose are the touchstones of statutory interpretation. “[A]ll statutes…must be interpreted in a textual, contextual and purposive way”: Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, 2005 SCC 54, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601, at para. 11. Legislative intent – the discernment of which is the goal of the exercise – “can be understood only by reading the language chosen by the legislature in light of the purpose of the provision and the entire relevant context”: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, at para. 118; Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, at para. 21.
[47] “The rules governing statutory interpretation apply equally to regulations” with the added consideration that “a regulation must be read in the context of the enabling Act, having regard to the purpose of the enabling provisions”: Ayr Farmers Mutual Insurance Company v. Wright, 2016 ONCA 789, 134 O.R. (3d) 427, at para. 27. This latter point is especially important where an apparent reading of a regulation runs contrary to the intent of the enabling legislation. In such a case, “[t]he intent of the statute transcends and governs the intent of the regulation”: Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 26, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533, at para. 38, quoting Elmer A. Driedger, Construction of Statutes, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1983) at p. 247.
[48] Since the interpretation of a statute is an issue of law and is reviewed on appeal on a standard of correctness (see Vavilov, at para. 37), it follows that a standard of correctness also applies to the appellate review of the interpretation of a regulation. . McDonald v. Aviva Insurance Company
In McDonald v. Aviva Insurance Company (Div Court, 2024) the Ontario Divisional Court allowed a LAT SABS appeal, here where the main issue was 'special awards' under s.10 ['Dispute Resolution (Section 280 of the Act)'] of Reg 664/90 ['Automobile Insurance'].
Here the court holds that the principles of statutory interpretation apply to regulations too:[39] These principles apply for both courts and tribunals: Vavilov, at para. 118. The rules governing statutory interpretation apply equally to regulations. A regulation must be read in the context of the enabling Act, having regard to the purpose of the enabling provisions: Ayr Farmers Mutual Insurance Company v. Wright, 2016 ONCA 789, at para. 27. . 2275518 Ontario Inc. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank
In 2275518 Ontario Inc. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of a partial summary judgement against the plaintiff.
Here the court notes that rules of statutory interpretation apply to regulations as well:[36] Further, I note that the principles of statutory interpretation apply equally to regulations, such as the Rules of Civil Procedure, subject to the proviso that they must also be read in the context of the enabling statute: Ayr Farmers Mutual Insurance Company v. Wright, 2016 ONCA 789, 134 O.R. (3d) 427, at para. 27. The modern approach to statutory interpretation requires that the words of a statute be read “in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament”: Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, at para. 21, quoting from Elmer Driedger, Construction of Statutes, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1983), at p. 87. See also Ayr Farmers, at para. 26.
|
