It is founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals; and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department.
[3] In Canada, courts have developed rules of construction to interpret ambiguities in treaties between Indigenous peoples and the Crown.
[6] In the case of a patent ambiguity, parol evidence is admissible to explain only what has been written, not what the writer intended to write.
For example, in Saunderson v Piper (1839),[7] where a bill of exchange was drawn in figures for £245 and in words for two hundred pounds, evidence that "and forty-five" had been omitted by mistake was rejected.
But where it appears from the general context of the instrument what the parties really meant, the instrument will be construed as if there was no ambiguity, as in Saye and Sele's case (1795),[8] where the name of the grantor had been omitted in the operative part of a grant, but, as it was clear from another part of the grant who he was, the deed was held to be valid.