If the text is deemed to be «unambiguous,» then textualism seems to cleanly slice through obfuscation like a scalpel, cutting away all messy questions about how to define and apply
broad statutory purpose, legislative history, or judicially crafted substantive canons by instructing the judge to follow the «plain» text.
Not exact matches
penalizes the defendant for engaging in public participation «plaintiff» means a person who initiates or maintains a proceeding against a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest;
Purposes of this Act: 2 The
purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a
statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote
broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper
purpose.
In its approach to
statutory interpretation, the majority engaged in a
broad canvassing of many different factors, ranging from the plain meaning, differences in wording, and the legislative
purpose.
A
broad interpretation of these
statutory powers, which confirms and reflects the inherent authority of judges to control procedure, helps fulfil the
purpose of class actions and ensure that procedural innovations in accessing justice will not be stymied by unduly technical or time - bound understandings of the scope of a class action judge's authority.
Although a court's usual obligation is to give effect to the
purpose of the legislature derived from the
statutory text, when important values appear to have been overlooked, a court is entitled to conclude that apparently
broad language does not, in law, achieve departure from those values, without an explicit indication to this effect in the text.