In Canadian law, the living tree doctrine (French: théorie de l'arbre vivant) is a doctrine of constitutional interpretation that says that a constitution is organic and must be read in a broad and progressive manner so as to adapt it to the changing times.
The living tree doctrine has been deeply entrenched into Canadian constitutional law since the seminal constitutional case of Edwards v Canada (Attorney General), also widely known as the Persons Case, wherein Viscount Sankey stated in the 1929 decision: "The British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits."
Lord Sankey LC’s reference to "natural limits" did not impose an obligation to determine, in the abstract and absolutely, the core meaning of constitutional terms.
Motor Vehicle Act, "If the newly planted 'living tree' which is the Charter is to have the possibility of growth and adjustment over time, care must be taken to ensure that historical materials, such as the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Special Joint Committee, do not stunt its growth.
In a 2011 speech, Brenda Hale, Baroness Hale of Richmond used the terminology of the living tree in a somewhat controversial discussion of the European Convention of Human Rights,[6] describing it as a more "vivid image" than the "living instrument" doctrine used in relation to the Convention.