Prior Provisions/Implied Repeal

Table of Contents


Airtel Communications Ltd. v. The Queen, 91 DTC 5235 (N.B.Q.B.)

Dickson J. referred to the principle "that as a general rule a legislature is presumed not to depart from prevailing law without expressing its intention to do so with irresistible clearness" (p. 5237).

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of Canada Ltd. et al. v. T. Eaton Co. Ltd. et al., 56 DTC 1060, [1956] S.C.R. 610

Fauteux J. noted that a declaration of the Tariff Board under s. 57 of the Excise Tax Act as to the taxability of a particular article was, subject to appeal by leave on a question of law only, final and conclusive potentially against anyone in Canada and therefore potentially precluded subsequent access by that person to the Exchequer Court, and went on to state (at pp. 1062-1063):

"That section 57 thus affords a substantial alteration of the general system of the law and particularly the other provisions of the Act dealing with the recovery of taxes is manifest. In like circumstances, the construction of this subsequent enactment, section 57, is subject to the rule that a Legislature is not presumed to depart from the general system of the law without expressing its intention to do so with irresistible clearness, failing which the law remains undisturbed."

Re Marr, [1990] 2 All E.R. 880 (C.A.)

"[T]he judge referred to 'the rule of last resort' ... to the effect that, if two sections of the same statute are repugnant, the known rule is that the last must prevail ... . If there ever was such a principle, it is long since obsolete. Such a mechanical approach to the construction of statutes is altogether out of step with the modern, purposive approach to the interpretation of statutes and documents." (p. 886)