|
Constitution - Interpretation. 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 constitutional interpretation doctrine:(1) Principles of Constitutional Interpretation
[47] The interpretation of a constitutional provision must be anchored in the meaning of its words, considered in context, with a view to the purpose it was intended to serve (R. v. Blais, 2003 SCC 44, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 236, at para. 16; Hunter v. Southam Inc., 1984 CanLII 33 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, at pp. 155-56). Constitutional documents must be read generously and purposively within their textual, contextual, and historical confines (Blais, at paras. 17 and 40).
[48] The meaning given to a constitutional provision must also be harmonious with the structure of government implemented by the Constitution, as expressed through both the 1867 and 1982 Constitution Acts (Reference re Secession of Quebec, 1998 CanLII 793 (SCC), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, at para. 50; Reference re Senate Reform, at para. 26). The interpretation of a single provision must be consistent with other provisions of the Constitution: one part of the Constitution cannot be construed to deprive another of its effect (New Brunswick Broadcasting, at pp. 373 and 390).
[49] The interpretive exercise is therefore guided and “constrained by the language, structure, and history of the constitutional text, by constitutional tradition, and by the history, traditions, and underlying philosophies” of the system of government these enactments are intended to establish (Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), 1987 CanLII 88 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313, at p. 394).
|
