In 2002, the taxpayer was resident both in Canada and the U.K. for domestic tax purposes, but by virtue of Art. 4, para. 2(a) of the Canada-U.K Income Tax Convention (the "Convention") he was a resident of the U.K. for purposes of the Convention. S. 250(5) of the Act, which otherwise might have explicitly deemed his non-residence under the Convention to apply for purposes of the Act, did not apply to him in 2002.
After noting a Crown submission that s. 250(5) effected a change to the Act, Rip CJ stated (in f.n. 33):
Subsections 45(2) and 44(f) of the Interpretation Act…provide that the repeal and the re‑enactment of a provision are not presumed to change the law. However, amendments, repeals and re‑enactments to the Act usually represent a change in the law due to the nature, object and context of the Act: see Century Services Inc. v. Canada (A.G.), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 379; 2010 SCC 60 at para. 54, per Deschamps J., at para. 129, and… Silicon Graphics Ltd. v. R., 2002 FCA 260 at para. 43.