(Supreme Court of Canada) The court strongly criticized the mandatory/directory distinction in statutory interpretation: ‘courts tend to ask, simply: would it be seriously inconvenient to regard the performance of some statutory direction as an imperative?’
References: [1994] 2 SCR 41
Judges: Iacobucci J
Jurisdiction: Canada
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005 (, [2005] UKHL 49, , Times 22-Jul-05, [2005] 3 WLR 303, [2006] 1 AC 340, [2006] 1 Cr App R(S) 79, [2006] Crim LR 167, [2005] 4 All ER 321, [2006] 2 Cr App R 20)
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.228959 br>