Canada v. Remai, 2009 DTC 5188 [at at 6257], 2009 FCA 340 -- summary under Redundancy/reading in words

By services, 28 November, 2015

In rejecting an interpretation of the Trial Judge that indicated that s. 251(1)(c) would not apply in any identifiable circumstance, Evans, J.A. stated (at para. 5) "Parliament is presumed not to intend provisions to have no practical application".

Topics and taglines
Topic
Statutory Interpretation - Redundancy/ reading in words/ speaking in vain
Tagline
provision not to be interpreted such that it can never apply
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
340390
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>The Queen v. Remai Estate</em></strong>, 2009 DTC 5188 [at 6257], 2009 FCA 340",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}