Before indicating that whether a payment made by a limited partnership to a limited partner that was styled as a loan was to be treated as a loan for purposes of ss. 96(2.2)(c) and 53(2)(c)(v) (rather than as a distribution) was to be determined based on the laws of Ontario, the Directorate stated:
Section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act recognizes the equal status of common law and civil law as sources of the law of property and civil rights in Canada (Canadian bijuralism), and affirms the principle of the complementarity of federal law and provincial law as the appropriate approach to the interpretation of federal legislation. The principle of complementary applies only “if in interpreting an enactment it is necessary to refer to a province’s rules, principles or concepts forming part of the law of property and civil rights” (i.e. private law), and it does not apply where “otherwise provided by law”. Where federal legislation disregards the private law of the applicable province, relying on other legal concepts or independent rules enacted in a federal act, a relationship of dissociation exists between federal law and the province’s private law.