Sources
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a site - Become an editor
Wikipedia. Licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Are you an expert in this subject? Join the discussion and share your knowledge at Wikipedia.org.
Living tree doctrine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- "Living tree" redirects here. For the biological sense of the living tree, see Tree
In Canadian law, the living tree doctrine is a doctrine of constitutional interpretation that says that a constitution is organic and must be read in a broad and liberal manner so as to adapt it to the changing times.
The living tree doctrine has been deeply entrenched into Canadian constitutional law since the seminal constitutional case of Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General) also widely known as the "Persons Case" wherein Lord Sankey stated: "The British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits." This is known as the Doctrine of Progressive Interpretation. This means that the Constitution cannot be interpreted in the same way as an ordinary statute. Rather, it must be read within the context of society to ensure that it adapts and reflects changes. If constitutional interpretation adheres to the Framer's Intent and remains rooted in the past, the Constitution would not be reflective of society and eventually fall into disuse.
The "frozen concepts" reasoning runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of Canadian constitutional interpretation: that our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life.[1]
The interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also makes use of the living tree doctrine. As Justice Lamer noted in Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act (1985), "If the newly planted 'living tree' which is the Charter is to have the possibility of growth and adjustment over time, care must be taken to ensure that historical materials, such as the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Special Joint Committee, do not stunt its growth."[2]
- ^ Supreme Court of Canada, in its ruling, Re: Same-Sex Marriage, December 2004
- ^ Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, para. 53.
 |
This article about Canadian law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
Attractive nuisance · Calculus of negligence · Caveat emptor · Caveat venditor · Contra proferentem · Duty of care · Eggshell skull · Fair use · First-sale doctrine · Good-faith exception · Living tree doctrine · Ignorantia juris non excusat · Implied powers · Implied terms of a contract · Odious debt · Plain view doctrine · Proximate cause · Res ipsa loquitur · Sovereign immunity · Stare decisis or Precedence rule · Standard of care · Unclean hands · Vicarious liability ·