Although the term ambiguity often refers to some level of uncertainty, this toolkit focuses on philosophical aspects of ambiguity. More specifically, it seeks to address semantic ambiguity concerning abstract concepts. 

Legal cases are the primary sources analyzed. In this, there exist cases that contain ambiguous or difficult to clarify concepts which have significant effects to Canada depending on how they are understood. Furthermore, there exist legal cases where the Court has analyzed and responded to ambiguous concepts in law. As such, consulting these is beneficial to a toolkit highlighting the nature, effects, and responses to ambiguity in language to those in Canada

Note: This toolkit only provides interpretive and analytical explanations of legal concepts and is not intended to establish authoritative or binding statements of law.  Furthermore, cases that are cited for explanatory purposes are not a substitute for the full judicial decisions. 

1.) Note different kinds of uncertainty, and what makes them unique. Additionally some hypothetical examples will be illustrated to clarify what these uncertainties are and how they would look if they were actualized.

2.) Note when there have been cases of uncertainty of language in cases in Canadian law, and how the courts interpreted and responded to this. In this, this section will mainly be interpreting and highlighting specifically what the ambiguity was, why it is ambiguous and how the court has responded to these. Furthermore, the main purpose of this is not to provide an up-to-date database on the legal approach to certain types of ambiguity but rather provide examples on how ambiguity can and has been responded and external factors that have been considered or that one may want to consider when responding to uncertainty.

3.) Note philosophical considerations. In this it will analyze the court’s responses to ambiguity and try to further explain concepts to add conceptual clarity in an abstract and exhaustive approach. Nevertheless, the main purpose of this is to simply provide additional reasoning from an educational point of view as to why or what part of a particular response from the court was a sufficient response to a case of ambiguity in that context. Furthermore, this doesn’t seek to outwardly affect the jurisprudence or serve to change legal proceedings or approaches to ambiguity. Additionally the purpose of this section is in agreement with the notion that concepts and ambiguities have a different legal understanding surrounding them as well as responses by the Court have a different purpose than that of works of philosophy. 

1. The topic of the entry.
   Includes the name of the topic and some court cases of relevance.
   
2. Ambiguity surrounding the entry topic.
   Includes what part of if it is ambiguous, why it is ambiguous, and consequences of this. 
   
3. The Court’s interpretation and response
   Includes how the court have interpreted these concepts and how it has responded to instances of ambiguity.  
   
4.  Analytical considerations
   Includes considerations relating to philosophy and if these can add conceptual clarity to the court’s response.