Dominant Feature
The first step in a pith and substance has been described in numerous ways. It determines the substance, essential character, dominant feature, or true meaning of the law. This involves examining both the intended purpose of the law as well as the legal effect of the law on rights and obligation upon the public. The purpose can be found through the wording of the law, the mischief that the law was intending to address as well as the overall social context for the law's introduction. Examination of the actual effect is useful in determining if the law was "colourable," that is, whether the law, in substance, addresses a matter completely different from what the law addresses in form. For example, in R. v. Morgentaler (1993) the province of Nova Scotia passed a law which prohibited certain surgical procedures from being performed outside of hospitals under the guise of health services protection. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that, in substance, they were attempting to ban abortions.
Read more about this topic: Pith And Substance
Famous quotes containing the words dominant and/or feature:
“The dominant metaphor of conceptual relativism, that of differing points of view, seems to betray an underlying paradox. Different points of view make sense, but only if there is a common co-ordinate system on which to plot them; yet the existence of a common system belies the claim of dramatic incomparability.”
—Donald Davidson (b. 1917)
“The paid wealth which hundreds in the community acquire in trade, or by the incessant expansions of our population and arts, enchants the eyes of all the rest; the luck of one is the hope of thousands, and the bribe acts like the neighborhood of a gold mine to impoverish the farm, the school, the church, the house, and the very body and feature of man.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)