Placer Dome Canada Ltd. v. Ontario (Minister of Finance), 2006 DTC 6532, 2006 SCC 20, [2006] 1 SCR 715 -- summary under Resolving Ambiguity

By services, 28 November, 2015

Before going on to find that an ambiguity in the statutory provisions of the Mining Tax Act (Ontario) should be resolved in favour of an interpretation that did not result in treating a definition of "hedging" as redundant, LeBel J. stated (at p. 6536):

The interpretive approach is thus informed by the level of precision and clarity with which a taxing provision is drafted. ... Where, as in this case, the provision admits of more than one reasonable interpretation, greater emphasis must be placed on the context, scheme and purpose of the Act. ... Although there is a residual presumption in favour of the taxpayer, it is residual only and applies in the exceptional case where application of the ordinary principles of interpretation does not resolve the issue ... .

Topics and taglines
Tagline
residual presumption in favour of the taxpayer
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
340444
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Minister of Finance (Ontario) v. Placer Dome Canada Ltd.</em></strong>, 2006 DTC 6532, 2006 SCC 20",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}