How have courts interpreted the " cardinal principle" in the context of constitutional law?

Alberta, Canada


The following excerpt is from Buzogan v. Banister, 1971 CanLII 233 (AB QB):

Tindal C.J. in Warburton v. Loveland (1832), 6 Bli. N.S. 1, 2 Dow. & Cl. 480 at 489, 5 E.R. 499, stated the cardinal principle: "Where the language of an Act is clear and explicit, we must give effect to it, whatever may be the consequences, for in that case the words of the statute speak the intention of the legislature."

Other Questions


How have the courts interpreted the merit principle in the context of a public service appeal board? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
How have the courts interpreted the second principle in the context of a motion for recusal and non-suit? (Ontario, Canada)
How have courts interpreted the principle of equalization in the context of the Rules of Justice? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have courts interpreted the principle of Jarman on Wills in the context of a will? (Alberta, Canada)
How have courts interpreted the principle of "the law of the law" in the context of Inland Revenue Com'rs? (Manitoba, Canada)
How have courts interpreted the principle of "good conscience” in the context of an action for the return of an unsecured loan? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
How have courts interpreted the principle of "temporary" employment in the context of federal employment law? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
How have the courts interpreted the meaning of the "ordinary rule” in the context of a sale of land? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
How have the courts interpreted the term “as liquidated damages” in the context of a contract? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have courts interpreted the principle of a plaintiff providing a piano forte to an auctioneer and instructing him to sell it for £40? (Alberta, Canada)