1963 conflicts with statute from 1953

    • Sponsored by Dentist Calgary
    • Here we solve this by implied repeal.
    • But somtiems better way would be to do what you do if contradiction within one statute- effecting a reciprocal adjustment, but that throws up problems fo its own, eg, where to stop?
    • One clear lesson comes through: Legislative carelessness about the jibe of statutes with one another can be very hurtful to legality and there is no simple rule by which to undo the damage.   Best to speak of “inconvient” or “repugnant” rather than contradiction.
  • To determine when two rules of human conduct are incompatible we must often take into account a host of considerations extrinsic to the language of the rules themselves.
    • At one time the command “cross the river but don’t get wet” was repugnant, today with bridges this is possible.
    • But appreciate that it is not just a technological matter. If you tell a man to jump with feet on ground, includes entire institutional spectrum- but how to reconcile this with  the new years jan 1 e.g and claiming that there was actually a legislative oversight would be instructive. ?? you didn’t get this last paragraph.
Continue Reading