The Minister contended that s. 112(3) was intended to prevent surplus-stripping, and should be interpreted expansively so as to achieve that effect in the present case. The Court dismissed this argument because it would contradict the clear wording of s. 112(3)(b). Evans J.A. stated (at para. 61):
In my opinion, what the Crown urges as the correct interpretation of subsection 112(3) is, because of the specificity of its text, more properly characterized as a proposed amendment.