According to the court, the words of s. 9(1) of the city(Montreal) bylaw are ambiguous, in that the words used are very general; the judges asked: “what exactly is 'noise'? Is it a sound that could disturb the public peace, or is it any sound that can be imagined? What does 'can be heard from the outside' mean? Is a connection with the building necessary, or would a cellular phone constitute sound equipment? The general language used by the lawmakers can be interpreted in many ways.”
According to the majority, given its ambiguous nature, the provision required interpretation. According to the court, in interpreting the provision, one must look not only at the words of the legislation, but also its context
No comments:
Post a Comment