Furthermore, there is no authority for implying a right to be heard in
the face of a statutory provision (such as s. 5 (1) of the MCIA), which specifically denies such a right
Not exact matches
«
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.»
Given that the authority to determine the meaning
of «expenses» had been vested in the tribunal and not in the courts, Justices LeBel and Cromwell's insistence that the tribunal interpret
statutory provisions as if it were a court flew in the
face of legislative intent.
The wry judicial litotes balanced against the desperation
of the layman
facing the same dense
statutory provisions might lead the independent bystander to doubt the chances
of a fair trial.