"How's the dictionary getting on?" Winston asked his comrade Syme, who worked with him in the
"We're getting the language into its final shape," Syme answered. "By the year 2050 at the very latest not a single human being will be alive who could understand the conversation we are having now."
1984, George Orwell.
This is perhaps the most important page on this web-site.
The first "trick" of the Government is the re-definition of certain critical words in each Statute (Act). They (the Government) want you to assume the ordinary meaning of the word so as to trick you into reading and interpreting the Statute in their favour. Here is a summary of some of the Trick Words. Two key words that are re-defined in almost every Statute are the words "person" and "individual". There are at least two "person" in law:
A natural-person is a legal entity for the human-being.
An artificial-person is a legal entity that is not a human being.Here are the exact definitions from Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary, fourth edition (ISBN 0-7641-0616-3):
The second "trick" of the Government is to use the Interpretation Act to define words that apply to all Statutes, unless re-defined within a particular Statute. Without this knowledge, you could assume the ordinary meaning for the words you are reading, not realizing that they may have been defined by the Interpretation Act. Unless these words have been re-defined in another Statute, the underlying definitions for the two most important words still apply, either from the Interpretation Act, or the Canadian Law Dictionary. Basically, they are defined as follows:
from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:In the Canadian Human Rights Act you will see how individual and person are used and how they apply to natural and artificial persons.
The third "trick" of the Government is to use the word "includes" in definitions instead of using the word "means". They do this in some critical definitions that they want you to misinterpret. If they used "means" instead of "includes" then their deception would be exposed, but by using "includes" they rely upon the reader to assume that "includes" expands the definition, whereas in reality it restricts the definition in the same manner that "means" restricts the definition.
Here is a means definition of the word "person" from the Bank Act:
person means a natural person, an entity or a personal representative;Here is an includes definition of the word "person" from the Interpretation Act:
person, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporationTo expose their deception, substitute the word means and you have
person , or any word or expression descriptive of a person, means a corporation (viz. - artificial-person)Both "means" and "includes" are restrictive in scope because they only encompass part of the whole. Typically they are used in the following form:
person means A or B or C (and nothing else).From the above example, you will see the logical difference. The list that follows means is constructed using "or", whereas the list that follows includes is constructed using "and".
There is a Legal Maxim that supports the restriction of "includes":
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.The definition of the word include is key to understanding your potential loss of natural-person. This is the major trick used by the Government in an attempt to take away your natural-person rights. Unless you know this, you will voluntarily forfeit your rights.
The fourth "trick" of the Government is to modify how the word "includes" is used in order to make an expansion in the definition when such expansion is required. This "trick" helps add confusion to the use of "includes" convincing most readers that "includes" should always be expansive rather than limiting. Here are some legitimate ways in which "includes" is modified to become expansive rather than restrictive:
also includesThe expansive definitions usually take the following form:
person means A or B or C and includes D. (A,B, C and D)However, there is also a possibility that "and includes" is restrictive in some constructions. There are some people investigating this possibility right now. Their logic is demonstrated by the following example of a definition that states:
province means a province of Canada and includes Ontario and Quebec.So, if we presume that "and includes" does provide expansion then we must ask why Ontario and Quebec had to be specifically mentioned when they are already part of a so-called province.
The above construction clearly defines the scope of what is meant by province, that is a province of Canada (it does not say which one), and includes only Ontario and Quebec (compiled from a list of two from the original scope of all provinces). In this construction means provides the scope of the definition and includes provides the list of what is actually included in the definition.
The foregoing analysis is one interpretation, but is not the only interpretation. The use of "includes" in statutory definitions can be argued both ways and is the backbone of understanding interpretations.
With the presumption that "and includes" is restrictive, then we must take a very close look at the following definition, taken from the Interpretation Act:
province means a province of Canada and includes the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut .With this presumption what is stated is: unless another statute re-defines province, the default definition of province only includes the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
So in order to not become absurd, we must allow for "and includes" to be expansive, however more work needs to be done on this subject before placing the last nail in the coffin, so to speak.
Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary does not provide definitions for "include" or "means" therefore we have to look in the next source for the definitions.
From Black's Law Dictionary, fourth edition, here is the definition for the word "include":
Therefore the conclusion is that when used in a definition, include does not expand the existing definition of the word it is attempting to define. It is easy to be confused because we naturally assume the existing definition of the word, then assume include means to add this new interpretation to the existing assumed definition of the word. Our assumptions fail us in this case.
From now on, when you see the word includes, mentally substitute the word means and you will not be "tricked" by this definition any more.
For the Doubting Thomas:
If you look into any statute, you will be able to find a definition that uses the word includes and when you attempt to broaden the scope of that word to include the ordinary meaning, you will find that the statute will break down because it will not be able to support the inclusion of the ordinary meaning of the word. The breakdown usually occurs when slavery is invoked.
"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"