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

La Forest stated (at para. 52) that accepting the Crown's argument that a lump sum received by the taxpayer for repudiation of an employment contract represented income under s. 3 notwithstanding that it did not come within the definition of a retiring allowance in s. 248(1) "would amount to giving precedence to a general provision over the detailed provisions enacted by Parliament to deal with payments such as that received by Mr. Schwartz pursuant to the settlement".