( iv) is incompatible with other provisions or with the object of
the enactment; or
( v) defeats the purpose of the statute or renders some aspect
of it pointless or futile.
See Rizzo, at para. 27.
[ 178] Other principles of statutory interpretation, such as the
Charter values presumption, are only applied when the meaning
of the provision is ambiguous. An ambiguity must be real in that
the words of the provision, considered in their context, must be
reasonably capable of more than one meaning. These meanings
must be plausible, each equally in accord with the intentions of
the statute: Bell ExpressVu, at paras. 28 and 29.
[ 179] Courts are also required to interpret legislation harmoniously with the constitutional norms enshrined in the Charter. For
Charter values are always relevant to the interpretation of
a disputed provision of the Criminal Code: Mabior, at para. 44;
R. v. Rodgers,  1 S.C.R. 554,  S.C.J. No. 15, at
 The rules of bilingual statutory interpretation prescribe
an approach that favours the common meaning that emerges
from the two versions of the enactment. Where a discrepancy
exists between two versions of the same text because one version
is ambiguous but the other is not, the common meaning between the two is preferred. And where one version is broader
than the other, the common meaning favours the more restricted or limited meaning: R. v. Daoust,  1 S.C.R. 217, 
S.C.J. No. 7, 2004 SCC 6, at paras. 2, 26; Schreiber v. Canada
(Attorney General),  3 S.C.R. 269,  S.C.J. No. 63,
2002 SCC 62, at para. 56.
[ 181] In interpreting bilingual statutes, we follow a two-step
[ 182] First, it is necessary to determine whether there is a discordance between the two versions. Where the two versions are
irreconcilable, we invoke other principles to settle the meaning,
favouring a contextual and purposive approach. We must determine whether there is an ambiguity in that either or both versions are reasonably capable of more than one meaning. Where
one but not the other is ambiguous, we look to a meaning common to both in order to reconcile the two versions. If a common
meaning can be found, it is this common meaning that is the version that is plain and not ambiguous. If neither or both of the two
versions are ambiguous, the common meaning is usually the
narrower version: Daoust, at paras. 27-29.