Home
David Scrimshaw's Library tagged → View Popular
Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, 2009 FCA 309 (CanLII)
It is difficult, if not impossible, to conclude that the answer (either yes or no) can be said to fall within a range of possible acceptable outcomes. There is much to be said for the argument that where there are two conflicting lines of authority interpreting the same statutory provision, even if each on its own could be found to be reasonable, it would not be reasonable for a court to uphold both
-
[50]
There is
binding authority to the effect that different standards of review can apply to
different legal questions depending on the nature of the question and the
relative expertise of the tribunal in those particular matters -
[75]
The proper
approach to statutory interpretation has been articulated repeatedly by the
Supreme Court of Canada and is so entrenched that reference to specific
authority is not necessary. The goal is to seek the intent of Parliament by
reading the words of the provision in context and according to their grammatical
and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the scheme and the object of the
statute. - 2 more annotations...
CanLII - 2009 FC 1068 (CanLII)
clerical error: “mechanical in nature and made without thought.”
Commissioner of Competition v. Premier Career Management Group Corp., 2009 FCA 295 (CanLII)
The important question to ask in determining whether a representation was made to the public is “to whom were the representations made?” Here, they were made to various members of the public seeking the services of the respondents.
-
I cannot accept that because the representations were made to individuals of
the public in a private place, this means that they were not made to the public -
Anything said by customers—however personal in nature—is irrelevant to a
determination of whether the respondents’ representations were misleading - 1 more annotations...
R.S.W.H. Vegetable Farms Inc. v. Girozentrale, 2009 CanLII 54771 (ON S.C.)
onus to show that it was a “farmer” within the meaning of the Farm Debt Mediation Act,
-
there are some rulings made in interlocutory proceedings that are res
judicata, but it does not establish that all such rulings are.
Kennedy v. Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit, 2009 ONCA 685 (CanLII)
the premises in question constituted an “enclosed public place”.
-
[22]
Both the appellant and the respondent frame their motions as
motions for the admission of fresh evidence. In my view, this material is
not the kind of material that is typically received as fresh evidence, which
must be assessed in accordance with the criteria articulated in Palmer v.
Palmer, 1979 CanLII 8 (S.C.C.), [1980] 1 S.C.R.
759. The Palmer criteria are properly reserved for fresh evidence
that goes to adjudicative facts. It seems to me that we can consider this
additional material on appeal to assist in statutory interpretation if the
interests of justice so warrant. The interests of justice require a
consideration of the potential cogency of the material, the unfairness, if any,
occasioned to the other side by receiving the material on appeal and the court’s
ability to effectively assess that material. -
I do not perceive
any unfairness in considering the Hansard material. First, both parties
seek to rely on Hansard evidence to advance their case. Second, if Hansard
evidence were admitted at trial it is doubtful that either side could have done
anything more with the evidence than they could do now on appeal. Hansard
evidence is not comparable to the evidence of a live witness who would be
subject to cross-examination and whose evidence is better heard by the trier of
fact. It is difficult to see how either side would suffer any disadvantage
in the admission of this evidence in the Court of Appeal - 1 more annotations...
CanLII - 2008 CanLII 56709 (ON S.C.D.C.)
Chiro who treats his wife is not guilty of sexual abuse for also having sex with her.
-
“incidental”. That term is defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary
(9th ed.) both as “having a minor role in relation to a more important thing,
event, etc.” and “following as a subordinate event”. Black’s Law
Dictionary (8th ed.) defines “incidental” as “subordinate to something of
greater importance, having a minor role”. -
[34]
I take the references to “incidental” medical care of
a spouse in both Mussani and Rosenberg to encompass care arising
from or as an incident to the spousal relationship. The concern of the
Court of Appeal, in using this term, is not the regularity or frequency of the
medical treatment, but whether the medical treatment arose as result of or as an
incident to the spousal relationship. I take this from the words of both Blair
J.A. and Sharpe J.A. where they refer to “incidental medical care” to a spouse
“during the course of a marriage - 1 more annotations...
Québec (Communauté urbaine) v. Corp. Notre-Dame de Bon-Secours, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 3
‑ The interpretation of tax legislation should follow the ordinary rules of interpretation;
‑ A legislative provision should be given a strict or liberal interpretation depending on the purpose underlying it, and that purpose must be identified in light of the context of the statute, its objective and the legislative intent: this is the teleological approach;
‑ The teleological approach will favour the taxpayer or the tax department depending solely on the legislative provision in question, and not on the existence of predetermined presumptions;
‑ Substance should be given precedence over form to the extent that this is consistent with the wording and objective of the statute;
‑ Only a reasonable doubt, not resolved by the ordinary rules of interpretation, will be settled by recourse to the residual presumption in favour of the taxpayer.
R. v. Henderson, 2009 ONCJ 363 (CanLII)
“variant” has been defined as:
1- differing in form or details from the main one
Toronto Transit Commission v. Ontario (Finance), 2009 CanLII 28407 (ON S.C.)
an activity, to constitute a service, must be for the benefit of someone other than the person alleging that he is rendering a service in association with his trade mark.
-
in order to be required to pay RST the TTC must have purchased a
telecommunication service for its own use at a sale in Ontario -
a purposive analysis, in the context of the legislation as a whole, and the
plain meaning of the text leads to the conclusion that the legislation was
designed to impose a tax on those persons who created taxable telecommunication
services for others, and who also used that service themselves. It is also
designed to impose tax on those who purchase more telecommunication service than
they can use, and who sell their excess to others
Brajkovich (Re), 2009 CanLII 22547 (ON S.C.)
it cannot be an accident or mistake that Parliament saw fit to add an adjective to the French term “services”, where no adjective was added to the word “services” in English. Parliament must be presumed to have intended the addition of an adjective, and might more properly be supposed to have omitted the specific adjective “judicial” in respect of “services” in the English version of the BIA. A drafter is, one supposes, more likely to accidentally omit a word than to accidentally insert it.
R. v. Huggins, 2009 ONCJ 155 (CanLII)
Dog Owners Liability Act: if the court decides that an order is necessary then the court has no discretion and the only order that can be made is an order of destruction pursuant to s. 4(3)(a). This interpretation however still assumes that prior to making an order that the court must be satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of the public.
Wainwright (Puddle Duck Trading) v. Jia, 2009 CanLII 15663 (ON S.C.D.C.)
the term "motor vehicle" in the Highway Traffic Act does not include a boat
ACE INA Insurance v. Co-operators General Insurance Company, 2009 CanLII 13625 (ON S.C.)
if you are a passenger in a car that is involved in an accident and you have your own car insurance your must first apply to your own insurer, not the driver’s insurer.
-
In other words, if you are a
passenger in a car that is involved in an accident and you have your own car
insurance your must first apply to your own insurer, not the driver’s insurer -
The question is not whether the car would be available to the claimant when he
went back to work the next day but was it being made available to him at the
time of the accident, when he was off work and on his way downtown in a friend’s
car. - 1 more annotations...
Ontario (Ministry of Consumer and Business Services) v. Gnish, 2004 ONCJ 399 (CanLII)
The definition of “collection agency” in s. 1 of the Collection Agencies Act includes the defendants who arrange for the payment of money to other persons on the admitted facts. They are required to register under s. 4 of the Act and are guilty as charged.
-
inferences about legislative purpose can be drawn from analyzing the structure
of an Act:
Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v. Bartram, 2009 ONCJ 29 (CanLII)
R. v. the Corporation of the City of Hamilton (2002) 58 O.R. (2n) 37 at para l6:
Protective legislation designed to promote public health and safety is to generously interpreted in a manner that is in keeping with the purposes and objectives of the legislation scheme. Narrow or technical interpretations that would interfere with or frustrate the attainment of the legislature’s public welfare objectives are to be avoided.
-
Past jurisprudence has found that the hands on president of a very small company
(R. v. Adomako [2002] OJ No 3050), a foreman
supervisor of a construction site (R. v. Jetters Roofing and Wall Cladding
Inc. and Roger Blouse [2000] OJ No. 5734), and the lead
hand of a parks grass-cutting crew (R. v. Eric Walters, unreported October
28, 2004, Ont. S. C. Epstein J) were “supervisors” within the Act.
Whether the responsibilities of a “supervisor” under the OHSA extend to the
highest level of senior management in a large, complex, multi-layered
corporation is at issue in this case. -
The Supreme Court of Canada has held, however, that regulatory offences are
distinguishable from criminal offences in law, and regulatory legislation
is to be given a broad and liberal interpretation to achieve the Parliamentary
objective of protecting society and its workers - 6 more annotations...
Hrushka v. Canada (Foreign Affairs and Passpost Canada), 2009 FC 69 (CanLII)
Definitions with substantive effect: It is a drafting error (less frequent now than formerly) to incorporate a substantive enactment in a definition. A definition is not expected to have operative effect as an independent enactment. If it is worded in that way, the courts will tend to construe it restrictively and confine it to the proper function of a definition
Branch v. Ontario (Environment), 2009 CanLII 104 (ON S.C.D.C.)
[39] The words of s. 163.1(2) of the EPA do not confer authority on a justice of the peace to order a person to appear to answer questions and to produce documents.
-
The weight to be given to obiter comments in a judgment varies
Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources) v. Schmidt, 2008 ONCJ 442 (CanLII)
9. I am totally confident that by inserting the word “includes” in the definition of “person” The Legislature intended to clarify that the term “person” is extended to what is stated as being included.
Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (National Defence), 2008 FC 766 (CanLII)
The Commissioner agrees that Parliament did not intend the Access Act to apply to political documents. For reasons provided below, the Court finds no exemption or exclusion for such political records. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Parliament did not intend the PMO or ministerial offices be implicitly included as a component part of the government institutions listed in Schedule I. Parliament would have expressly so provided if it so intended.
-
V.
BURDEN OF PROOF -
V. BURDEN OF PROOF
- 16 more annotations...
King v. Canada (Human Resources and Social Development), 2008 FC 777 (CanLII)
the meaning of the term “erroneous advice” under s. 66(4). Erroneous: both mistake and incorrect in the sense of that which is disagreed with by a higher authority; Advice: includes advice to member of public and advice to minister.
-
[23]
The purpose of
s. 66(4) is remedial. It is designed to place an applicant in the place he/she
would have been but for the specific events of erroneous advice or
administrative error. Given this purpose, there is no reason to give the words
“erroneous advice” (or “administrative error” for that matter) a limiting,
technical or narrow meaning, scope or application -
both mistake and incorrect in the sense of that which is disagreed with by a
higher authority - 1 more annotations...
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Groups interested in statutory
-
Statutory Interpretation
Items: 8 | Visits: 6
Created by: billbailey25
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo