Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. M.N.R.; Toronto-Dominion Bank v. M.N.R., 96 DTC 6245, [1996] 1 SCR 963, [1996] 1 CTC 395 -- summary under Resolving Ambiguity

By services, 28 November, 2015

Before going on to consider the purpose of s. 224(1.2) of the Act and of s. 337 of the Excise Tax Act, Cory J. stated (at p. 6248):

Thus, when there is neither any doubt as to the meaning of the legislation nor any ambiguity in its application to the facts then the statutory provision must be applied regardless of its object or purpose. I recognize that agile legal minds could probably find an ambiguity in as simple a request as 'close the door please'... However, the very history of this case with the clear differences of opinion expressed as between the trial judges and the Court of Appeal of Alberta indicates that for able and experienced legal minds, neither the meaning of the legislation nor its application to the facts is clear. It would therefore seem to be appropriate to consider the object and purpose of the legislation.

d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
340435
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>The Queen v. Province of Alberta Treasury Branches</em></strong>, 96 DTC 6245, [1996] 1 SCR 963",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}