Exida.Com Limited Liability Company v. Canada, 2010 DTC 5101, 2010 FCA 159 -- summary under Ordinary Meaning

By services, 28 November, 2015

Although the legislative intent for s. 162(2.1) was to have a non-resident corporation pay an alternative penalty when it had no liability for income tax (para. 28), "those charged with implementing the legislative plan failed in their task" (para. 38). Nöel, J.A. stated (at para. 32):

[W]hile a contextual and purposive analysis is useful in identifying amongst the meanings which a word (or phrase) can have the one that best reflects Parliamentary intent, it cannot be used to give the legislative language a meaning which it cannot bear ...

Topics and taglines
Tagline
purposive interpretation must be consistent with words
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
340315
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Exida.com LLC v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2010 DTC 5101, 2010 FCA 159 <strong>[purposive interpretation must be consistent with words]</strong>",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}