arbiter
JournalsAccount

Revisiting the Use of Legislative History in Statutory Interpretation

Charlie Feldman & Mark Mancini

Alberta Law Review2026https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2884article
ABDC B
Weight
0.50

Abstract

This article re-evaluates the place of legislative history in Canada’s modern interpretive method. It frames the debate around enduring tensions among text, purpose, and legislative intent. Tracing the shift from exclusion to cautious inclusion of legislative history and other extrinsic materials, it exposes the methodological uncertainty shaping judicial interpretation. The article shows how errors arise when courts conflate parliamentary evidence with executive commentary or treat incomplete records as authoritative. Finally, it proposes a structured, text-centred methodology that assigns legislative history a restrained, principled, and confirmatory role. This approach promotes interpretive coherence, transparency, and fidelity to constitutional principles and the separation of powers.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2884

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{charlie2026,
  title        = {{Revisiting the Use of Legislative History in Statutory Interpretation}},
  author       = {Charlie Feldman & Mark Mancini},
  journal      = {Alberta Law Review},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2884},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Revisiting the Use of Legislative History in Statutory Interpretation

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.