Anticipating that the respondent would argue that the definition was ambiguous and thus should be interpreted in a manner that does not give rise to absurd results, the petitioner argues that there is no ambiguity on the face of the definition. There can be absurdity without ambiguity and that is what this regulation creates. For that proposition, the petitioner relies on Regina v. McIntosh, 1995 CanLII 124 (SCC), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.