Fortnum – Tax Court of Canada applies the residual presumption in favour of the taxpayer

S. 118.5(1)(b) accords a tuition credit to “a student in full-time attendance at a university outside Canada in a course leading to a degree” subject to exclusions for inter alia fees “paid in respect of a course of less than three consecutive weeks duration.” In the face of conflicting authority, Smith J found that this requirement was satisfied by a summer session for an MBA program at an Indiana university that consisted of 10 consecutive courses each of which was of one or two weeks’ duration. He did not consider it necessary to indicate whether this was on the basis that the singular (“course”) included the plural (per Abdalla) or on the basis that “course” should be interpreted as referring to a course of study (see Siddell, 2011 TCC 250).

He also stated:

[W]here the application of the ordinary principles of interpretation may not resolve the issue … the matter should be resolved by recourse to the residual presumption in favour of the [taxpayer, citing Placer Dome].

Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Fortnum v. The Queen, 2018 TCC 126 under s. 118.5(1)(b) and Statutory Interpretation – Resolving Ambiguity.