Rarotonga, 2010

Simon Shields, LLB

Online Lawyer (Ontario)

Most Popular
Contracts / Torts / Evidence / Limitations / Tenant Plus / welfare (ontario works) / odsp / human rights / employment / consumer / E-Access
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | SPPA / SMALL CLAIMS / CIVIL COURT / CIVIL APPEALS / JUDICIAL REVIEWS

home / about / Little Friends Lefkada (Greece) / testimonials / Conditions of Use

Associated Site
Canadian Animal Law

Statutes and Statutory Interpretation - Absurdity

. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v. Danay Suarez

In Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v. Danay Suarez (Div Ct, 2021) the Divisional Court quotes from the leading statutory interpretation case of Rizzo on absurdity:
[33] In Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC), Iacobucci, J. noted:
It is a well established principle of statutory interpretation that the legislature does not intend to produce absurd consequences. According to Côté, supra, an interpretation can be considered absurd if it leads to ridiculous or frivolous consequences, if it is extremely unreasonable or inequitable, if it is illogical or incoherent, or if it is incompatible with other provisions or with the object of the legislative enactment (at pp. 378-80). Sullivan echoes these comments noting that a label of absurdity can be attached to interpretations which defeat the purpose of a statute or render some aspect of it pointless or futile (Sullivan, Construction of Statutes, supra, at p. 88). (para. 27)


CC0

The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.