This is part 3 in our countdown to Michael Schmidt’s court of appeal appearance Thursday July 26th at Osgoode Hall (see details at bottom). Legal documents often redefine the meanings of common words to be other than what they are usually understood to be. Whatever reasons may be behind such practices, these redefinitions can easily lead to a lack of transparency.
In Michael Schmidt’s case, much hinges on the meaning of the word “distribute”, which, for once, is not clearly defined or redefined in meaning for purposes of the HPPA. From the Applicant’s Factum.
- According to Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes:
“Statutes enacted by a legislature that deal with the same subject are presumed to be drafted with one another in mind, so as to offer a coherent and consistent treatment of the subject. The governing principles was stated by Lord Mansfield in R. v. Loxdale: Continue reading