The respondents say that these authorities, in particular, the decision in FAP v. B.C., can be distinguished. The respondents say that Regulation 12 is of a type specifically authorized by sections 24(1), 24(2)(f) and (k), and 24(4)(c) of the Act and therefore cannot be said to be inconsistent with the Act. The respondents say also that where regulations are of the type specifically described by the enabling statute, the court need not consider whether the regulations are consistent with the object or purpose of the statute.
"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.