Opinion analysis: When a statutory exclusionary rule «makes sense» SCOTUSblog, May 15, 2018 The Supreme Court's brisk opinion in Dahda v. United States awarded the government yet another exclusionary rule victory, this time in
the context of a statutory provision rooted in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
Not exact matches
This series
of statutory and common law
provisions in the
context of family proceedings raises the following questions:
«Faced with a difficult point
of statutory interpretation and conflicting judicial authority, the Tribunal adopted a dictionary meaning
of «expenses» and articulated what it considered to be a beneficial policy outcome rather than engage in an interpretative process taking account
of the text,
context and purpose
of the
provisions in issue.»
For instance, within the
context of a motor vehicle collision, any such contractual term establishing a subrogation claim would be contradicted and overruled by the specific
provisions set out in the
Statutory Accident Benefit Schedule and the Insurance Act, which purport that the accident benefits provider and at - fault driver receive a deduction for LTD benefits paid, not the other way around.
(iv) In addressing the questions the court should focus very closely on the language
of the
statutory provision in question in the
context of the statute and in the light
of any
statutory definition.
The Court
of Appeal arrived at its decision on the PJI rate by employing a traditional textual analysis, interpreting
statutory provisions in accordance with their ordinary meaning and in their full
statutory context.
Justice Côté also noted that the
statutory context supported this position, and in particular the legislation's reference to «legal privilege» in the
provision allowing a public body to refuse to disclose privileged information — i.e., «information that is subject to any type
of legal privilege, including solicitor - client privilege» (at para 52, citing FOIPP s 27).
The third case considered here also concerns a tribunal's discretion, but in the much more precise
context of how it is to operate the
provisions on the «uplift»
of compensation in relation to the
statutory procedures — are there rules, or is it a discretionary free - for - all?