How have courts interpreted the " cardinal principle" in the context of constitutional law?

Alberta, Canada


The following excerpt is from Buzogan v. Banister, 1971 CanLII 233 (AB QB):

Tindal C.J. in Warburton v. Loveland (1832), 6 Bli. N.S. 1, 2 Dow. & Cl. 480 at 489, 5 E.R. 499, stated the cardinal principle: "Where the language of an Act is clear and explicit, we must give effect to it, whatever may be the consequences, for in that case the words of the statute speak the intention of the legislature."

Other Questions


How have the courts in the United States and Canada interpreted the principles of the Court of Appeal in the context of a motion for summary judgment? (Alberta, Canada)
How have courts interpreted the principle of Jarman on Wills in the context of a will? (Alberta, Canada)
How have the provisions of section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 been interpreted and interpreted by the courts? (Alberta, Canada)
How has the Supreme Court interpreted the principle of common law in the context of the discovery of fraudulent disclosure of personal data? (Alberta, Canada)
How have courts interpreted the Charter and the role of the courts? (Alberta, Canada)
How have courts interpreted section 8 of the Criminal Code in the context of search and seizure? (Alberta, Canada)
How have courts interpreted the principle that no transfer or ownership passes or passes the estate unless the estate has already been registered? (Alberta, Canada)
How has the court interpreted the law in the context of P.TO.O. protecting an employee’s safety shield? (Alberta, Canada)
How have the courts interpreted the meaning of the word "contract" in the context of an enforceable contract? (Alberta, Canada)
Can a court order all court-ordered sales of a personal injury property be exempt from all court ordered sales? (Alberta, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.