|
Statutory Interpretation - Customs Law. Canada (Attorney General) v. Impex Solutions Inc.
In Canada (Attorney General) v. Impex Solutions Inc. (Fed CA, 2020) the Federal Court of Appeal considered the statutory interpretation doctrine that applies to tariffs under the federal Customs Act:[57] Although the rules governing the interpretation of the Tariff Schedule, both internationally and domestically, have been said to be "“unique”" (Canada (Minister of National Revenue) v. Schrader Automotive Inc., 87 A.C.W.S. (3d) 287, 1999 CanLII 7719 (FCA) at para. 5), there are indications in the case law that the modern approach to statutory interpretation remains relevant in tariff classification matters (Canada (Deputy Minister of National Revenue) v. Mattel Canada Inc., 2001 SCC 36, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 100 at para. 41; A & R Dress Co. Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2005 FC 681, [2006] 3 F.C.R. D-11 at 2; A&R Dress Co. Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FC 27 (CanLII), [2009] 4 F.C.R. 192, 13 T.T.R. (2d) 540 at para. 21). This means that, as any other legislative provisions, Note 8(a) to Section XI must "“be read in [its] entire context and in [its] grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament”" (Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, 154 D.L.R. (4th) 193 at para. 21, quoting Elmer Driedger, Construction of Statutes, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1983), at p. 87).
|
