Page:NCGLE v Minister of Home Affairs.djvu/68

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Ackermann J

[70]I accordingly conclude that reading in is, depending on all the circumstances, an appropriate form of relief under section 38 of the Constitution and that

“… whether a court ‘reads in’ or ‘strikes out’ words from a challenged law, the focus of the court should be on the appropriate remedy in the circumstances and not on the label used to arrive at the result.”[1]

The real question is whether, in the circumstances of the present matter, reading in would be just and equitable and an appropriate remedy.

  1. Knodel v British Columbia (Medical Services Commission) (1991) 91 CLLC ¶ 17, 023 at 16, 343, [1991] 6 WWR 728; 58 BCLR (2d) 356 (SC) per Rowles J, as quoted with approval by Lamer CJC in Schachter’s case above n 93 at 13 f.