When CRA Scrutiny Shifts From Mechanics To Interpretive Requirements

D'Arcy v. HMK shows that meeting mechanical requirements is not enough; interpretive precision determines whether a structure holds under scrutiny.

Key Takeaways

• CRA challenges often evolve from mechanical to interpretive tests. The decisive factor is not a structure's mechanics but whether its interpretive elements hold up under scrutiny.

• Meeting the mechanical requirements of legislation ensures compliance; meeting the interpretive requirements determines whether a structure endures under review.
• The degree of control private companies retain under CRA pressure depends on understanding both dimensions, and on how interpretive requirements are reinforced in practice.