ABSTRACT
This chapter explores how courts resolve linguistic indeterminacy in bilingual and multilingual jurisdictions. Two major kinds of linguistic indeterminacy contribute to legal indeterminacy in statutory interpretation. The two linguistic indeterminacies are Intralingual indeterminacy and interlingual indeterminacy. Having two or more legislative texts sometimes helps with interpretation, especially as regards intralingual indeterminacy. According to Michael Beaupre, many cases would not have reached the courts 'had the parties compared the two versions of the law in the first place'. Consider a Canadian case in which the main issue in dispute was whether Perrier, a carbonated mineral water sold in bottles or cans, should be taxed as a 'carbonated beverage' within the meaning of Schedule III of the Excise Tax Act. This case is one of many instances where a Canadian court has resolved ambiguity contained in a legislative text by referring to another language version of the same text.
