Schwartz v. Canada, 96 DTC 6103, [1996] 1 SCR 254 -- summary under Comparison of Provisions

By services, 28 November, 2015

In finding that the reference to employment in the definition of retiring allowance referred only to the loss of current employment rather than the loss of prospective employment given that s. 80.4(1) specifically contained an additional reference to "intended" employment, LaForest J. stated (at para. 61):

"It is a well-established principle of interpretation that words used by Parliament are deemed to have the same meaning throughout the same statute ... ."

Topics and taglines
Tagline
presumption of consistent expression within same statute
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
340026
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Schwartz v. The Queen</em></strong>, 96 DTC 6103, [1996] 1 SCR 254",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}