If a law doesn&#39;t exist prohibiting something, does that mean it&#39;s legal to do?
<p>My question about is how does the law work in general. If someone does something, and no one can find a law that is being broken, then is the person free to do that thing? Or must a law give permission? Basically I'm asking what is the default position?</p>

<p>For example, I was curious if in the province of British Columbia employers can force their employees to keep their wages confidential. I red the <a href="http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96113_01" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Employment Standards Act</a> but couldn't find any information on the topic. What does it mean that it doesn't say either way? </p>

<h2><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Everything which is not prohibited is allowed</a></h2>

<p>This is the fundamental basis of the common law (and is one of the reasons that countries with a common law tradition continue to be relatively more innovative than those without).</p>

<p>However, things do not have to be prohibited by statute to be prohibited. Judges have discretion to say that a “new” thing is sufficiently similar to an “old” thing that a prohibition on the latter encompasses the former.</p>

<p>As to your particular question: if it isn’t prohibited for a contract (of employment) to prohibit disclosure of salaries then its permitted for one to do so. In <a href="/questions/tagged/australia" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;" rel="tag">australia</a> it is prohibited to so limit employees but such a clause can limit the employer.</p>

civil-law legal-concepts