For reference purposes only: Please remember that the law, although somewhat open to interpretation, is very literal and so requires a comprehensive understanding of Grammar & Rhetoric[1]. Please also note that the newer enactments supersede the older ones, however, as I understand, where the newer enactments omit items ~ the older items still stand. For instance; if the Constitution Of Canada states "it is an inherent right for members of Delica Canada to drive Delicas" but the Charter Of Rights & Freedoms states "members of Delica Canada must[2] drive Delicas with Yokohama Geolandar tyres" ~ then the Charter holds sway. But if the BNA Act states that Delica drivers may use E-code headlamps and nothing is mentioned in the other relevant acts, then this can be argued. This is where "Precedence" comes into play. Also remember that I am not a lawyer and that when you use the information provided in this posting, you do so taking responsibility for your own actions.
Falco.
The Constitution.The Canadian Charter Of Rights & Freedoms
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/The Canadian Bill Of Rights (1960) c.44
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs ... &length=50The Constitution Of Canada
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Const/index.htmlBNA Acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_No ... ct.2C_1867The British North America Act, 1867.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/British_N ... _Act,_1867The Official Reports From ICBC, 2007 & Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec, 2009ICBC RHD Report: "The Safety Of Right Hand Drive Vehicles In British Columbia".
The Safety Of Right Hand Drive Vehicles In British ColumbiaQuebec RHD Report: "Analysis Of The Accident Risk For Right Hand Drive Vehicles In Quebec" (in English).
Analysis Of The Accident Risk For Right Hand Drive Vehicles In Quebec[1] The Seven Liberal Arts & Sciences: Arithmetic; Geometry; Music; Astronomy; Grammar; Rhetoric; Dialectic.
[2] There is a big difference between "must, may, can &c.".
![]](./styles/BlueDrop/theme/images/menu-right.jpg)
