Even if the provisions were ambiguous, the appeal would still have to succeed. As Dickson J. said in Marcotte v. Deputy Attorney-General of Canada (1974), 1974 CanLII 1 (SCC), 19 C.C.C. (2d) 257 (S.C.C.) at 262, “No authority is needed for the proposition that if real ambiguities are found, or doubts of substance arise, in the construction and application of a statute affecting the liberty of a subject, then that statute should be applied in such a manner as to favour the person against whom it is sought to be enforced.” The interpretation that favours the liberty of the subject in this case is the interpretation that requires the sentence to start running again immediately upon the offender being brought before a justice and detained in custody either to await the show cause hearing under s. 515(6) or to be dealt with in according to law in accordance with s. 515(6).
"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.