In Bridge v. R., 1952 CanLII 9 (SCC), [1953] 1 S.C.R. 8, 104 C.C.C. 170, [1953] 1 D.L.R. 305, Cartwright J. made two statements relating to severability of the by-law in question. At p. 13 of the report he said: “In my opinion, however, these provisions are severable and if the by-law is otherwise valid it may stand with the words quoted above in this paragraph deleted from sections 7(2) and 8(2) [of the bylaw].” And again at p. 14: “If the question before us had been whether the by-law was valid in toto it might have been necessary to consider whether there should be any apportionment of costs in view of it being held that the words above quoted in sections 7(2) and 8(2) of the by-law are invalid but severable, but since the question actually to be decided is whether the conviction is good or bad I think the respondent is entitled to costs.” (The italics are mine.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.