Is a bylaw valid if there is an error in one of its whereas statements?
<p>We have a bylaw that references another bylaw in one of the whereas statements. </p>

<p>It says, "WHEREAS Bylaw 1638 provides authority for..." and it doesn't really matter what bylaw 1638 provides authority for, because bylaw 1638 was <strong>defeated</strong> during its second reading. </p>

<p>I'm guessing these bylaws were drafted around the same time, and for some reason the author decided it was necessary to include the reference to the other bylaw. The one bylaw was passed <em>before</em> the other, which got tabled, and eventually defeated. </p>

<p>Is this bylaw valid?</p>

<p>It would depend on the exact extent of the reference. A phrase like "WHEREAS Bylaw 1638 provides authority for X" only provides political context, and it does not change what the law says. The stuff after the bit that says "NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF HUZIWHATSIS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS" is the enforceable stuff. Wording like "whoever shall be found guilty of violating Bylaw 1638", or "...violates provision C(2) of Bylaw 1638" would be meaningless, since there is no such Bylaw (there may have been a proposed thing, but it isn't a bylaw if it is defeated. The question is whether the present bylaw has meaning <em>without</em> reference to the defeated bylaw. Presumably they thought of that.</p>

canada legislature statutes alberta