Symes v. Canada, 94 DTC 6001, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695, [1994] 1 CTC 40 -- summary under Specific v. General Provisions

In finding that the taxpayer was precluded from deducting her child care expenses under s. 9 of the Act without limitation, rather than in accordance with s. 63, Iacobucci J. indicated (p. 6019) that if "the actual purpose of [an] expenditure is addressed in the Act", then "if a specific provision exists which limits deductibility in respect of that purpose", the specific provision governs. Otherwise, recourse may be had to more general rules governing deductibility.