Which Kraft of Statutory Interpretation? A Supreme Court of Canada Trilogy on Intellectual Property Law
AbstractThe techniques used by courts to interpret statutes can be characterized as inconsistent, and at times, excessive. Current methodologies of statutory interpretation often reflect deeply normative views about the appropriate institutional role of the legislative and judicial branches of law-making, but this characterization of the debate is misleading. Rather, the problem lies with properly discerning legislative meaning and intent in full awareness of the limitations and possibilities of statutes as communicative devices. The author suggests a new methodology of statutory interpretation, whereby courts analogize the facts before them with certain paradigm cases. This methodology serves to constrain judicial discretion and enables courts to fill gaps in legislation in connection with novel cases.
Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
- Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
- Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.
To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.