|
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)
|
