Yes No Share to Facebook
Understanding Statutory Interpretation:
Context, Grammar, and Keeping Harmony With Legislative Intent
Last Updated: August 22 2026
Question: How do Ontario courts apply rules of statutory interpretation when deciding a legal dispute?
Answer: Mole Legal Services can help a paralegal and property management team explain how courts in Ontario interpret statutes, using the modern rule that the words of a statute must be read in their entire context and grammatical and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the scheme, object, and intention of the legislation, as reflected in Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, and emphasized in Huether v. Sharpe, 2025 ONCA 140. Courts also apply a purposive, remedial approach directed by Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 219, including the instruction to use fair, large, and liberal construction that best ensures attainment of the act’s true intent, meaning, and spirit. If you have a dispute involving how a law should be read, call (647) 709-5157 to get a free 15-minute consultation and clear next steps for your situation across Ontario.
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: Please contact Mole Legal Services by phone at: (647) 709-5157 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.
NOTE: A significant quantity of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a pressing need for competent legal assistance rather than a specific professional designation. In Ontario, paralegals who are licensed are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers, allowing them to represent clients in specific litigation scenarios. Advocacy, analytical skills, and procedural expertise are fundamental to this position. Mole Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed scope, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and effective advocacy aimed at securing prompt and favourable outcomes for clients.
