[advisedwang]

As a matter of law though it's a terrible argument.

the BC Human Rights code has a provision "If there is a conflict between this Code and any other enactment, this Code prevails." So unless the taxi fee explicitly says it supersedes the human rights code it explicitly does not.

[kbelder]

What if the other enactment has the same provision?

[advisedwang]

Most parliamentary systems don't allow past law from preventing future laws overriding it. So if a later law clearly says it overrides an earlier law, then it does*. If it's ambiguous, then courts would generally decide (or parliament can write a new law clarifying).

* Unless that country has "tiers" of laws. Often there are classes of laws that are always superior to each other. For example constitutions cannot be overriden by regular laws, regardless of time or clarity. But note that parliaments can generally amend constitutions too, so the equivilant is too conflicting constitutional laws. Some countries also have human rights laws that trump regular laws, and that is in effect what BC has set up with that provision.

[pests]

Theres a temporal component, the later law needs to specify it overrules the earlier. The earlier law can't reference a law that doesn't exist.