Table of Contents


The Queen v. Eggert, 85 DTC 5522, [1985] 2 CTC 343 (FCTD)

The taxpayer's interpretation was rejected since it had the effect of repositioning a parenthesis in s. 6(1)(b)(vii).

See Also

Matthew v. The Queen, 97 DTC 1454 (TCC)

Before going on to refer to the absence of a comma in the relevant portion of s. 90(1)(a) of the Indian Act, Rip TCJ. stated (at p. 1457) that "the presence or absence of punctuation, while not determinative in itself, can be an important interpretative aid ...".