Last Updated: August 23 2026
How do courts interpret statutes in Ontario when the wording seems unclear?
Courts generally use the modern rule of statutory interpretation: read the words of the statute “in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament,” as described in Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, and applied in Huether v. Sharpe, 2025 ONCA 140; they also aim to find harmony between the text and the legislative goal, often guided by remedial construction concepts in Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 219, s. 10. If you need marketing content for Ontario law firms or paralegals that accurately explains these principles, Marketing.Legal™ can help you optimize your website, SEO, and AI-driven pages for clarity and search intent, call (800) 551-5751.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Applicable Rules When Interpreting Statutes
Statutory interpretation is crucial to a review of the law and to resolution of legal disputes, regardless of the type of law applicable to the issues involved. Whereas differing viewpoints can exist, and thereby lead to differing interpretations, courts have established rules as guides to assist in the interpretation and application of legistlative statutes. Statutory interpretation is a cornerstone for ensuring that the legal system functions effectively, by harmonizing laws with the intended purpose of the laws.
Note: For immediate help, please contact Marketing.Legal™ by phone at: (800) 551-5751 to retain services or to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
In the case of Huether v. Sharpe, 2025 ONCA 140, the Court of Appeal emphasized the modern rule that requires the complete reading of a statute with principled attention given to the grammatical and ordinary meaning of the statutory text while keeping such in harmony with the scheme, purpose, and intent, of the legislation. These principles align with the foundational approach set out by the Supreme Court within Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, by highlighting the importance of context and objective in legal interpretation. Specifically, the Huether and Rizzo cases state:
[31] The modern rule of statutory interpretation requires that the words of a statute are to be read “in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament”: Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, at para. 21, citing Elmer A. Driedger, Construction of Statutes, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1983), at p. 87. The goal of the interpretive exercise “is to find harmony between the words of the statute and the intended object”: R. v. Breault, 2023 SCC 9, 481 D.L.R. (4th) 195, at para. 26, quoting MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, 2021 SCC 23, [2021] 1 S.C.R. 899, at para. 39.
21 Although much has been written about the interpretation of legislation (see, e.g., Ruth Sullivan, Statutory Interpretation (1997); Ruth Sullivan, Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (3rd ed. 1994) (hereinafter “Construction of Statutes”); Pierre-André Côté, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd ed. 1991)), Elmer Driedger in Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983) best encapsulates the approach upon which I prefer to rely. He recognizes that statutory interpretation cannot be founded on the wording of the legislation alone. At p. 87 he states:
Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.
Recent cases which have cited the above passage with approval include: R. v. Hydro-Québec, 1997 CanLII 318 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213**; Royal Bank of Canada v. Sparrow Electric Corp., 1997 CanLII 377 (SCC), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 411; Verdun v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, 1996 CanLII 186 (SCC), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 550; Friesen v. Canada, 1995 CanLII 62 (SCC), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 103.
22 I also rely upon s. 10 of the Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 219, which provides that every Act “shall be deemed to be remedial” and directs that every Act shall “receive such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as will best ensure the attainment of the object of the Act according to its true intent, meaning and spirit”.
Conclusion
Statutory interpretation is a crucial skill and plays a pivotal role in ensuring that the law is applied correctly and fairly. By interpreting statutes with precision and clarity in accordance with established guidelines rather than a confusing or arbitrary manner, the integrity of law in a democratic society is upheld and proper justice in the resolution of legal disputes may be done.
