Cases
Canada v. Loblaw Financial Holdings Inc., 2021 SCC 51
Parliament does not speak in vain
Côté J applied (para. 64) the proposition that “Parliament does not speak in vain” in agreeing with with the proposition that:
It is incongruous to posit that Parliament has consistently provided a safe harbour for Canada’s largest multinational financial enterprises since 1995, yet intended to undermine that safe harbour if the oversight, cooperation, and coordination that is to be expected in such a group is present.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(1) - Business | “business conducted,” as contrasted to “business,” did not include the raising of capital | 229 |
| Tax Topics - General Concepts - Foreign Law | meaning of banking business under Barbados law was not persuasive | 234 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 95 - Subsection 95(1) - Investment Business - Paragraph (a) | bank business was conducted with arm's length persons notwithstanding that capital raised from shareholder | 579 |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Certainty | full effect should be given to Parliament’s precise and unequivocal words to produce certainty | 88 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 91 - Subsection 91(1) | two policies balanced in FAPI regime | 79 |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterius | specific addition of a competition requirement in another provision implied that there was no such requirement here | 152 |
Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 381
presumption against the legislature using redundant words so as to speak in vain
The Court found that restrictively interpreting the provision before it:
would violate the presumption against tautology, according to which “[i]t is presumed that the legislature avoids superfluous or meaningless words, that it does not pointlessly repeat itself or speak in vain” (para. 32).
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 232 - Subsection 232(1) - Solicitor-Client Privilege | exclusion for accounting records was invalid even where CRA demands related to enforcement action against the lawyer | 540 |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Hansard, explanatory notes, etc. | Hansard indicated an intent for an amendment to trench on privilege | 107 |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Redundancy/reading in words | presumption against tautology | 120 |