|
Statutory Interpretation - Consistent Meaning Within Statute. Walby v. Canada
In Walby v. Canada (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Tax Court appeals, here from MNR reassessments denying a claim for "charitable donation tax credits".
The court considers principles of statutory interpretation, here that of 'consistent meaning' within a statute:[72] In Schwartz v. Canada, 1996 CanLII 217 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 254, La Forest J., writing on behalf of the majority of the Supreme Court in the context of an income tax appeal, stated at paragraph 61:It is a well-established principle of interpretation that words used by Parliament are deemed to have the same meaning throughout the same statute; see, for recent applications of the principle by this Court, R. v. Zeolkowski, 1989 CanLII 72 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1378, and Thomson v. Canada (Deputy Minister of Agriculture), 1992 CanLII 121 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 385. This, as all principles of interpretation, is not a rule, but a presumption that must give way when circumstances demonstrate that such was not the intention pursued by Parliament. However, in the present circumstances, I see no reason to depart from that principle since, to the contrary, it confirms and is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the words “employment” and “retiring allowance” chosen by Parliament. [73] This principle was repeated in Francis v. Baker, 1999 CanLII 659 (SCC), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 250, when Bastarache J., writing on behalf of the Supreme Court, at paragraph 37, referred to "“the established principle that where the same word is used on multiple occasions in a statute, one is to give the same meaning to that word throughout the statute”". . Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company v. Ridi
In Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company v. Ridi (Ont CA, 2022) the Court of Appeal considers the statutory interpretation principle that the same words used throughout a statute have the same meaning:[42] ... Treating amounts required to be paid for attendant care benefits as inclusive of HST but excluding HST from the maximum amount payable for attendant care benefits would be contrary to the principle of statutory interpretation to give, “the same words the same meaning throughout a statute”: R. v. Zeolkowski, 1989 CanLII 72 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1378 at p. 1387; Thomson v. Canada, 1992 CanLII 121 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 385, at pp. 400-01, per Cory J.
|
