Search - considered

Canada (Revenue Agency), 2007 DTC 5527, 2007 SCC 42, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 217-- summary under Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterius Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterius Rothstein J. rejected a submission of the Crown that because Parliament had enacted provisions of the Act respecting registered Canadian amateur athletic associations (RCAAAs), it should be considered to have established that athletic associations could not also qualify as charitable organizations. ...

Canada (Revenue Agency), 2007 DTC 5527, 2007 SCC 42, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 217-- summary under Redundancy/reading in words Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Redundancy/reading in words Rothstein J. refused to give an expansive interpretation to what was charitable in the context of a submission that a sports organization should be considered to be charitable in part in light of the consideration that an expansive interpretation would undercut the distinction drawn under the Act between non-profit organizations that were operated exclusively for social welfare, and charitable organizations, and stated (at para. 28): "When courts consider expanding the definition of charity, therefore, they must consider whether what is being proposed is an incremental change, or one with more complex ramifications that is better left to the legislature. ...

Brown J essentially indicated that it was reasonable for the CITT to consider that if the gloves were not covered by the specific paragraph dealing with clothing items, they should not be considered to be intended to be included in that heading, stating (at para. 50): It is reasonable to interpret that list item as stating exhaustively its own criteria — meaning, in this case, that if an article of clothing or accessories is to be classified in heading 39.26, it must be made by sewing or sealing sheets of plastic together [which was not the case for the goalie gloves]. ...

In confirming that Télé‑Métropole had infringed Bishop’s copyright by recording the song without his permission, even though it had the right to braodcast the performance and the recording was to be used only for the two broadcasts, McLachlin J stated (at pp. 478, 484-5) [T]he rights to perform and to record a work are considered sufficiently distinct that they are generally assigned separately, and administered by different entities. … Neither the wording of the [Copyright] Act, nor the object and purpose of the Act, nor practical necessity support an interpretation of these sections which would place ephemeral recordings within the introductory paragraph to s. 3(1) rather than s. 3(1)(d) [re recording right]. ...

In the course of finding that this premium did not fall within the ambit of Rule 57.01(1)(i) of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure (similar to Rule 147(3)(j) of the Tax Court Rules), namely “any other matter relevant to the question of costs”, since it did not have anything in common with the other factors relating to costs enumerated in Rule 57.01(1) (a) to (h), Rothstein J stated that these other factors provided guidance as to the type of matters that might be considered relevant in Rule 57.01(i), and further stated (at para. 25): Indeed, the Latin maxim ejusdem generis, or the limited class rule, is helpful in determining legislative intent when a court is faced with a list of items followed by a general term. ...

": Respecting the position of Rothstein, J. who, in his dissenting reasons, stated (at para. 108) that "if there is a specific anti-avoidance rule [such, as here, s. 74.5(11)] that precludes the use of an enabling rule to avoid or reduce tax, then the GAAR will not apply", Lebel J. stated (at para. 45): "Where the language of and principles flowing from the GAAR apply to a transaction, the court should not refuse to apply it on the ground that a more specific provision- one that both the Minister and the taxpayers considered to be inapplicable throughout the proceedings- might also apply to the transaction. ...

Only where the nature of a taxpayer's venture contained elements which suggested that it could be considered a hobby or other personal pursuit did it become necessary to establish that the taxpayer had an objective intention of profit and that there was evidence of businesslike behaviour which supported that intention. ...

It must also be considered that the power of issuing a definition is to be exercised in good faith and it would be usurpation of power for the Minister to suppress the exemption by issuing no definition. ...

Canada (Minister of Transport), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3-- summary under Regulations/Statutory Delegation Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Regulations/Statutory Delegation approval given pursuant to a federal navigation statute should be interpreted as being subject to an order issued under a federal environmental statute Before confirming the quashing of an approval of the federal Minister of Transport given pursuant to the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Canada) for a dam to be built on the Oldman river in Alberta on the basis that no environmental assessment had been performed as required under the “Guidelines Order” issued under the Department of the Environment Act (Canada), La Forest J considered the argument of the appellants, Alberta and the federal Ministers, that the Guidelines Order was inconsistent with and therefore must yield to the requirements of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, namely, that the Minister of Transport was confined by that Act to a consideration of matters pertaining to marine navigation alone, and that the Guidelines Order could not displace or add to the criteria mentioned in that Act. ...

On this basis, unless the Portfolios would be considered a trust at private law, they cannot be a “person” within the meaning of s. 123(1). ...