Latin maxim of interpretation: the
provisions of a general statute must yield to those of a special one.
Also known as the rule of implied
exception.
"The rule is generalia
specialibus non derogant. The general principle to be applied ... to the
construction of acts of Parliament is that a general act is not to be construed
to repeal a previous particular act, unless there is some express reference to
the previous legislation on the subject, or unless there is a necessary
inconsistency in the two acts standing together. And the reason is ... that the
legislature having had its attention directed to a special subject, and having
observed all the circumstances of the case and provided for them, does not
intend by a general enactment afterwards to derogate from its own act when it
makes no special mention of its intention so to do....
"As a corollary from the doctrine that
implied repeals are not favored, it has come to be an established rule in the
construction of statutes that a subsequent act, treating a subject in general
terms and not expressly contradicting the provisions of a prior special
statute, is not to be considered as intended to affect the more particular and
specific provisions of the earlier act, unless it is absolutely necessary so to
construe it in order to give its words any meaning at all....
"The reason and philosophy of the rule
is, that when the mind of the legislator has been turned to the details of a
subject, and he has acted upon it, a subsequent statute in general terms or
treating the subject in a general manner and not expressly contradicting the
original act, shall not be considered as intended to affect the more particular
or positive previous provisions, unless it is absolutely necessary to give the
latter act such a construction, in order that its words shall have any meaning
at all."
"... the rule of
interpretation that subsequent general legislation is deemed not to derogate
from a prior special Act (generalia specialibus non derogant)."
In a previous Supreme Court of Canada
decision, Lalonde v Sun Life, Justice Gonthier had used these words in
his opinion:
"This is an appropriate case in which to
apply the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant and give precedence
to the special Act.... The principle is, therefore, that where there are
provisions in a special Act and in a general Act on the same subject which are
inconsistent, if the special Act gives a complete rule on the subject, the
expression of the rule acts as an exception to the subject-matter of the rule
from the general Act."
"In the case of conflict between an
earlier and a later statute, a repeal by implication is never to be favoured
and is only effected where the provisions of the later enactment are so
inconsistent with, or repugnant to, those of the earlier that the two cannot
stand together… Speciat Acts are not repealed by general Acts unless there be
some express reference to the previous legislation or a necessary inconsistency
in the two Acts standing together which prevents the maxim generalia
specialibus non derogant being applied."
In Sullivan and Driedger:
"Implied exception (generalia
specialibus non derogant). When two provisions are in conflict and one of
them deals specifically with the matter in question while the other is of more
general application, the conflict may be avoided by applying the specific
provision to the exclusion of the more general one. The specific prevails over
the general; it does not matter which was enacted first. This strategy for the
resolution of conflict is usually referred to by the Latin name generalia
specialibus non derogant. The English term “implied exception” is
adopted ... for, in effect, the specific provision implicitly carves out an
exception to the general one...."
In R v Greenwood, Justice Griffiths of
the Ontario Court of Appeal wrote
"The maxim generalia specialibus non
derogant means that, for the purposes of interpretation of two statutes in
apparent conflict, the provisions of a general statute must yield to those of a
special one."
No comments:
Post a Comment