Skip to content

CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · Interpretation of Statutes

A municipal by-law states: 'No person shall bring any vehicle into the Central Park.' Ravi, a municipal worker, drives an ambulance into the park to rescue a collapsed visitor. The prosecutor argues that an ambulance is a 'vehicle' and the by-law is plainly worded. Which rule of interpretation best supports the view that Ravi should not be held liable?

The purposive or mischief approach supports Ravi. The by-law exists to keep the park safe, so reading it to punish an ambulance rescue would defeat its object and produce an absurd result. The literal rule would cut against him, and the other rules need a list of associated words.

  1. ALiteral rule, because words must be read strictly in their dictionary sense
  2. BPurposive (mischief) approach, because the by-law aims to keep the park safe and peaceful, not to block emergency rescueCorrect
  3. CRule of ejusdem generis, because 'vehicle' is listed with other similar words
  4. DRule of noscitur a sociis, because the word 'person' is read with 'park'

Explanation

The by-law's purpose is to protect park users from disturbance and danger. Applying that purpose avoids an absurd result such as punishing a rescue. The literal rule would favour the prosecutor, and no list of words exists for ejusdem generis or noscitur a sociis to work on.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Interpretation of Statutes shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

More Interpretation of Statutes questions