LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Ouster Clauses – Strict Construction Required

Ouster clauses (provisions excluding or limiting court jurisdiction) receive strict, narrow construction. Courts must not: construe them liberally (giving broad, expansive interpretation), loosely (casually or without rigor), or wantonly (carelessly or arbitrarily). Instead, strict construction means: (1) Reading ouster provisions narrowly; (2) Resolving ambiguities in favor of preserving jurisdiction; (3) Requiring clear, unambiguous language to exclude jurisdiction; (4) Not extending ouster beyond express terms. This strict approach serves: protecting constitutional right of access to courts, maintaining judicial power as a fundamental governmental function, ensuring Parliament’s intention to exclude jurisdiction is unequivocal, and preventing erosion of rule of law. Courts presume Parliament does not intend to exclude judicial oversight without the clearest language. If an ouster clause is ambiguous or capable of multiple interpretations, courts adopt the interpretation preserving jurisdiction. This principle is part of the broader constitutional protection of judicial power and access to justice, ensuring ouster clauses are not given effect beyond their clear, unambiguous terms.