July 3, 2011 - Includes

The Term 'Includes'
This is a most interesting word and one used by legislators with what seems to be intentional ambiguity. Its original mean stands in contradiction to our street English meaning today. It is an old English term that confuses even the courts and thereby leaving the authors of legislation lawfully faultless of the abuse of human rights. It does not endemnify legislators of the failure in their mandate to serve and protect the rights of the people who comprise 'the public'. It is my hope that the courts will soon see this fraud and remedy it.

In 550551 Ontario Ltd. V. Framingham, the court stated: 

“If it was the intention of the legislature to engulf citizens in their personal capacity, outside a sole proprietorship, and outside the corporate veil, in what is little short of confiscatory legislation they must do so in clear unambiguous language.”

Generally, when defining words one would use a format such as, ‘person means' this or that. They however, chose to use the word includes which has its old English meaning the idea of ‘to enclose’ or ‘confine within.’ Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 3rd edition, lists the following synonyms for ‘include’:

“Include, verb...be composed of, be formed of, be made up of,...”

Law Dictionaries such as Black’s 4th edition and earlier, clearly define ‘includes’ as:

“To confine within, hold as in an inclosure, take in … contain, inclose, comprise ... involve. Including may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of and or in addition to...” (underline mine)

Where today "Dinner includes desert" means desert is an added as a part of the dinner, in its original meaning dinner is desert and nothing more. Remember, the words of legal English ought not change meaning.

In Black’s 6th, a tried and true maxim of law1 states:

“The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.  The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. ... This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.”

Referring to this Inclusion/Exclusion maxim in State of Kansas v. Curtis John Herrman, the Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas ruled:

“Under this rule, when legislative intent is in question, we can presume that when the legislature expressly includes specific terms, it intends to exclude any items not expressly included in the specific list.”

With these facts in mind, where the Legislative Act defines ‘person’ it can can only mean ‘a corporation.’

“person” includes a corporation (Legislative Act - Ontario)

Re-read the Highway Traffic Act or any other legislative act and replace the word ‘person’ with ‘corporation.’ Is this enlightening?

In spite of these very clear facts, judges refuse to accept that, in legislative acts, the term person can only mean ‘a corporation.’ For that reason I add this caution: 

Courts continue to be confused by this word and wrongly rule against this interpretation of the definition of the term person.

1MAXIM. An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant with reason.

Use what you read here as a part of your research to establish your understanding.
Your actions remain your responsibility.
All natural rights reserved. © 2012 steven, a man. <><