However, in areas where the Canadian constitution is silent, the federal government does Statutory interpretation necessarily have superior jurisdiction. Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant Subsequent laws repeal those before enacted to the contrary, aka "Last in Time" When two statutes conflict, the one enacted last prevails.
Proponents of the use of canons argue that the canons constrain judges and limit the ability of the courts to legislate from the bench. Textual[ edit ] Textual canons are rules of thumb for understanding the words of the text.
Some of the better-known rules of construction methods are:. It may also be unwise[ citation needed ] to depart from the literal text if judges are generally less likely than legislatures to enact wise policies. In these cases the federal law is held to be paramount.
Rather, an area of law that is not expressly mentioned in Canada's Constitution will have to be interpreted to fall under either the federal residual jurisdiction found in the preamble of s.
Volumes 3A-3C cover the application of the rules of statutory interpretation in selected areas of substantive law. In Canadathere are areas of law where provincial governments and the federal government have concurrent jurisdiction. The Charming Betsy6 U. Avoidance of abrogation of state sovereignty See Gregory v.
Substantive canons instruct the court to favor interpretations that promote certain values or policy results.
Historical interpretation: using the legislative history, to reveal the intent of the legislator. Charming Betsy canon National statute must be construed so as not to conflict with international law.