Historically, the law only knows the substantive law, while the procedural problem arises from the judge who presides over the trial. However, with the passage of time, the court has formulated evidence and procedural rules, which can be classified as procedural law (also known as adjective law), mainly involving the fairness and transparency of the procedure.
Relying on re Coles and ravenshears, author of the 5th edition of halburys law (2009) in England,
Substantive law creates rights and obligations and determines the end of justice embodied in law, while procedural law is the supplement or assistance of substantive law.
Justice in wing construction Ltd. of the court of appeal of Manitoba adopted the following words:
Although the distinction between substance and procedure is not always easy to draw, it is still recognized.
The function of substantive law is to define, create or give substantive legal rights or legal status, or impose and define the nature and extent of legal obligations.
The function of practice and procedure is to provide a mechanism or way for a court or other recognized or properly constituted court to enforce or recognize legal rights or status and legal obligations.
In the insutt family law case, justice Schroeder wrote:
It is important to keep in mind the essential differences between substantive law and procedural law.
Substantive law creates rights and obligations and is related to the purpose that judicial administration seeks to achieve. …
(P) people’s law is a tool to provide the means and means to achieve these ends. It regulates the actions of the court and the litigants in the litigation itself, while the substantive law determines their actions and relations in the litigation matters.
In inernst v. Ernst v. Ernst, the high court of Ontario defined the entities applicable to the law as:
… Relating to or consisting of rules of rights administered by a court as opposed to procedural forms. Procedure is defined as the way or form of judicial procedure, which is different from the legal branch that defines rights or prescribed penalties.
In inpoyser v. minors, although judge lush did not explicitly use the substantive law of phrases, he proposed the traditional difference between procedural law and substantive law
In a larger sense, practice is the meaning obviously used in the law. For example, the procedure used in the judicial law indicates a procedural way to enforce a legal right, which is different from the law that gives or defines the right. Through the procedure, the court will manage the machine different from its products.
Arnold Thurman of Yale law school wrote for Harvard Law Review in 1932:
The difference between procedural law and substantive law is one of the most interesting consequences of our attitude towards an independent judicial system. Substantive law is sacred and fundamental. It represents the experience of the ages. It is based on personal freedom. It never needs reform, because its basic authenticity can always be found through logical analysis. On the other hand, the procedure is completely feasible. It always needs to be changed, not logically, but according to the actual details. It is also based on age experience, but age is aging rather than wisdom. However, despite these fundamental differences, no one has been able to develop criteria that can distinguish between procedural and substantive law in any given situation. Substantive law is still the law we implement, and the practical rules we implement. Therefore, we always restate substantive law according to its principles and procedures according to its practical problems.
Once we realize that there are only differences of attitude, any doctrine can be regarded as procedure and the issues discussed, or as substantive law and stated principles, which are most useful in the judicial system. The distinction between procedural law and substantive law is a movable dividing line, which can be placed where objective examination of our judiciary is required.
Substantive law is the standard procedure. Procedure is an impeccable substantive law.