Not exact matches
For years, patent owners, especially those that have never «performed» the patent,
used the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's broad
interpretation of the patent venue
statute to force infringement lawsuits into favorable jurisdictions.
Traditional
interpretation statutes have given some examples of words in visible form, like engraving, that suggested the
use of paper.
Within the past decade, banking and insurance companies have hired historical legal experts and spent a lot of time litigation over the US Federal Court system's power to issue equitable remedies such as the Mareva injunction and equitable liens to seize assets in federal litigation; the Alien Torts Act which has been
used by international human rights organizations had its breadth restricted by
use of 18th century views of the «law of nations» requiring recourse to historic writers like Hugo Grotius, and even administrative law has come under assault by dissents of Justice Thomas arguing that the «Chevron» doctrine of deference to agency
interpretations of their own
statutes should be set aside as being incompatible with the understanding of the American separation of powers doctrine as it was understood at the time of the country's founding.
As early as the seminal case of CUPE v NB Liquor, «expertise» has been
used to justify deference on questions of home
statute interpretation.
In Kazakewich v. Kazakewich, [1936] A.J. No. 10 (C.A.), the Alberta Court of Appeal summed up the ratios in Lambe, Severn and Edwards in this way at paragraph 86: I take it then that in approaching the
interpretation of the pertinent sections of The B.N.A. Act with respect to the administration of justice, a Court should keep in mind that these sections are embodied in an Imperial
statute to which the ordinary rules for the
interpretation of
statutes apply, that therefore the intention of the framers of this Imperial
statute must be ascertained as at the date of the enactment by having regard to the words employed without extraneous aids to
interpretation where the language is unambiguous, and that having regard however to the nature of the
statute, a great constitutional charter, the widest and most liberal construction of the words
used should be adopted with a view to giving effect to the whole scheme of Canadian union [Emphasis Added].
River logic can be
used to build a case against an opponent, to ferret out the logical errors in new
statutes, or to automate the
interpretation of a particularly complex
statute.
In her own decision, Côté J rejects the relevance of the British Columbia
statute for interpreting Alberta's, and relies significantly on inconsistent language
used within the Alberta
statute to justify her
interpretation of the wording of s 56 (3).
However, Tremeear's also includes the DNA Identification Act, the Firearms Act and the
Interpretation Act, while Martin's opts for the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, a
statute rarely
used in Canada.