Before finding (at para. 33) that the language used in the definition in s. 149.1(1) of a public foundation indicated that "Parliament has precisely and unequivocably evidenced its intent that public foundations must have more than one trustee," Dawson JA stated (at para. 27):
The words, if clear, will dominate; if not, they yield to an interpretation that best meets the overriding purpose of the statute. See Celgene Corp. v. Canada...2011 SCC 1, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 3 at paragraph 21.
She then went on to refer to a discussion paper of the Department of Finance before concluding that this interpretation accorded with the legislative purpose. ("[T]he requirement that there be more than one arm's length trustee provides greater assurance that a public foundation will not be used for tax avoidance purposes" (para. 42).)