The taxpayer attended an accelerated one year MBA program at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. The summer session included 10 consecutive courses, each of which was of one or two weeks’ duration. The Minister denied the taxpayer’s tuition tax credit (that had been claimed under s. 118.5(1)(b)) on the basis that each course was less than three consecutive weeks’ duration
After noting that Siddell (2011 TCC 250) found that the intent of the legislation was to interpret the word "course" as referring to the entire program taken by the individual in an academic year, and that Abdalla found that, under s. 33(2) of the Interpretation Act, “course” referred to multiple consecutive courses aggregating to the required duration, Smith J stated (at paras 22, 23, and 24):
…[T]he Appellant was in full‑time attendance during the summer semester following courses that lead to a degree. Attendance at all ten courses was mandatory. … She registered for the summer semester and paid a single fee. All courses were taken consecutively or “one after the other”, over a ten week semester.
A textual, contextual and purposive analysis of the subject provision leads me to conclude that the tuition fee paid by the Appellant in respect of the summer semester meets the requirements of paragraph 118.5(1)(b) of the Act.
If I am wrong in reaching that conclusion, I find that this is a case where the application of the ordinary principles of interpretation may not resolve the issue, in which case the matter should be resolved by recourse to the residual presumption in favour of the Appellant: Placer Dome ... .