World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Equal authenticity rule

Article Id: WHEBN0028303039
Reproduction Date:

Title: Equal authenticity rule  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Translating "law" to other European languages, Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, Alberta Act, Section 125 of the Constitution Act, 1867, Paramountcy (Canada)
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Equal authenticity rule

The equal authenticity rule is a rule of judicial interpretation developed by Canadian courts as a way of interpreting laws which are written in two parallel texts in English and French. The constitution of Canada requires that both versions of each Canadian law be treated as equally authoritative, which can result in problems when the English and French versions do not say exactly the same thing. The equal authenticity rule is derived from section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which states, inter alia, "The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those Languages [i.e. both English and French].”

History

The rule requires courts to treat “both [the English and French] versions of statutes [as] equally valid and authoritative interpretations of the law,”[1] The rule holds that both versions are equally authoritative even if the statute in question was clearly drafted in one language and translated into the other, and even if the two versions of the law are incompatible.

The equal authenticity rule was developed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1891, in the court’s ruling in CPR v. Robinson. This case dealt with the Civil Code of Quebec, which is enacted in both French and English.

By implication, the rule also related to all laws enacted by the Parliament of Canada, as section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is equally binding upon the federal Parliament and Quebec legislation.

The Supreme Court of Canada first applied this rule of judicial interpretation to Acts of Parliament in 1935, in its ruling in the case of R. v. DuBois

Unresolved issue regarding the application of the rule

Some Canadian provinces (Quebec and Manitoba from the time of their establishment, and since 1982 New Brunswick) are constitutionally obligated to enact all laws in both official languages. However, a number of other provinces, such as Ontario, have opted to enact their laws in both English and French, even though they are not constitutionally required to do so. One question, not yet tested in the courts, "arises...as to whether both versions of bilingual legislation enacted in a province where there is no constitutional requirement to do so would be considered equally authoritative in the absence of an express Equal Authenticity Rule."[2] (An "express" equal authenticity rule would presumably take the form of such a rule in the relevant province's Interpretation Act or some other piece of quasi-constitutional legislation.

Bastarache et al., who raise this question, answer it in the affirmative, explaining that in their view, "the logic applicable to federal, Quebec and Manitoba legislation under the Constitution would also apply [even in the absence of a legislated statement of this logic]: that is, where two languages [sic] versions of a statute are enacted simultaneously both versions will be considered equally authoritative."[2]

References

  1. ^ This definition of the equal authenticity rule is from Michel Bastarache, Naiomi Metallic, Regan Morris and Christopher Essert, The Law of Bilingual Interpretation. Markham, Ontario: LexisNexis, 2008, p. 17.
  2. ^ a b Michel Bastarache, Naiomi Metallic, Regan Morris and Christopher Essert, The Law of Bilingual Interpretation. Markham, Ontario: LexisNexis, 2008, p. 27.
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.