Copthorne Holdings Ltd. v. Canada, 2012 DTC 5006 [at at 6536], 2011 SCC 63, [2011] 3 SCR 721 -- summary under Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterius

After referencing the expressio unius or "implied exclusion" principle, Rothstein J agreed (at para. 108) with the taxpayer's submission that when a definition of paid-up capital ("PUC") "lists a series of specific 'grinds' [to PUC], without any indication of the possibility of making additions to that list, that it may be assumed that the list is exhaustive." However, he went on to find that this "implied exclusion argument" was misplaced when it was advanced to argue that the general anti-avoidance rule could not be applied to prevent reliance by the taxpayer on this definition in a manner that defeated the underlying rationale of the PUC provisions.