Words and Phrases - "as a consequence of"
Bank of Nova Scotia v. Canada, 2024 FCA 192
In finding that the phrase “as a consequence of” in s. 161(7)(b)(iv) required a causal connection, Woods JA stated (at paras. 32-34):
[B]oth the English and French versions of the proviso imply a causal element. Beginning with the English, the phrase “as a consequence of” clearly imports a causal element.
Similarly, the French version has a causal element by virtue of the corresponding phrase “à la suite de laquelle”, which can be translated as “by reason of” (Le Petit Robert de la langue française (Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert, 2022)). I note that the Tax Court found the French version to mean “following which”, a translation that lacks a clear causal connotation (Decision at para. 24). Although “following which” is an accepted translation in French dictionaries, the French phrase also has the broader meaning of “by reason of”, as mentioned.
The proper approach is to determine, if possible, a meaning which is shared between the English and French versions (R. v. S.A.C., 2008 SCC 47, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 675 at paras. 14-16). In the phrase at issue, the causal element reflects the shared meaning, and it is the meaning to be adopted.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 161 - Subsection 161(7) - Paragraph 161(7)(b) - Subparagraph 161(7)(b)(iv) | interest on an audit adjustment accrued up to the time that the taxpayer, learning of the adjustment, requested a loss carryback to offset it | 408 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 111 - Subsection 111(1) - Paragraph 111(1)(a) | Minister has the discretion to reject a loss carryback request | 137 |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Certainty | Parliament seeks certainty, predictability and fairness | 112 |
Attorney General of Canada v. Hoefele, 95 DTC 5602, [1996] 1 CTC 131 (FCA)
Employees of Petro-Canada who were required to relocate from Calgary to Toronto had a declining percentage of their increased interest costs (resulting from an increase in their outstanding mortgages of no more that 55%) subsidized by Petro-Canada provided they took out their new mortgage with Confederation Life.
Linden J.A. noted (at p. 5608) that the phrases "because of" or "as a consequence of" in s. 80.4(1) required "a strong causal connection" and went on to find that because the employees (who already had Calgary homes) obtained their new form of mortgage financing largely independently of employer involvement, it was reasonable to consider that the new mortgage debt was incurred "in order to obtain ownership of a house, not ... 'as a consequence of'... employment".
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - General Concepts - Tax Avoidance | form matters | 82 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 6 - Subsection 6(1) - Paragraph 6(1)(a) | interest rate subsidy did not increase net worth | 102 |