|
Statutory Interpretation - "In Respect Of" (and Similar). Fridman v. Canada (Foreign Affairs)
In Fridman v. Canada (Foreign Affairs) (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, this brought against an earlier dismissal of a JR, that brought against the Minister of Foreign Affairs' refusal to remove the appellant's names from a SEMA sanctions list.
Here the court considered the meaning of the terms 'with respect to' and 'in relation to' from a statutory interpretation perspective:[14] The expressions "“with respect to”" and "“in relation to”" are both broad ones. The Supreme Court of Canada has described the expression "“in respect of”" as one that imports the meaning of "“in relation to”", and as "“probably the widest of any expression intended to convey ""some connection between two related subject matters”" (emphasis added): Nowegijick v. The Queen, 1983 CanLII 18 (SCC), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29 at 39. And the same broad interpretation applies to "“relating to”" or, in this case, "“in relation to”": Slattery (Trustee of) v. Slattery, 1993 CanLII 73 (SCC), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 430 at 445–46. Both broad connecting phrases "“suggest that a wide rather than narrow view should be taken”" of the Governor in Council’s assessment of the regulations that it considers necessary to accomplish the legislation’s purposes: Slattery at 446. . McQuade v. Canada (Attorney General)
In McQuade v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal allowed a class plaintiffs' certification motion appeal, this where they "sought certification of a class proceeding, as representative plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of current and former regular members of the RCMP with an Operational Stress Injury".
Here the court comments on the meaning of the term: 'in respect of':[51] Section 9 of the CLPA has broad reach. As Justice Iacobucci observed, the words "“in respect of”" have a wide scope: "“They import such meanings as ‘in relation to’, ‘with reference to’ or ‘in connection with’. The phrase ‘in respect of’ is probably the widest of any expression intended to convey some connection between two related subject matters”": Sarvanis at para. 20, quoting Nowegijick v. The Queen, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29 at p. 39, 1983 CanLII 18 (S.C.C.). . Jewish National Fund of Canada Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue)
In Jewish National Fund of Canada Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue) (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, that from a JR challenging a Ministerial revocation of charitable registration "by publishing a notice of intention to revoke (NITR) in the Canada Gazette".
Here the court considers the meaning of the phrase "in respect of":[28] The Supreme Court of Canada has said that "“[t]he phrase ‘in respect of’ is probably the widest of any expression intended to convey some connection between two related subject matters”": Nowegijick v. The Queen, 1983 CanLII 18 (SCC), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29, 144 D.L.R. (3d) 193 at 39 [Nowegijick]. The synonymous French expression, "“relative à”", is equally broad.
|
