Hickman Motors Ltd. v. Canada, 97 DTC 5363, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 336, [1998] 1 CTC 213 -- summary under Drafting Style

By services, 28 November, 2015

In finding that revenue-producing assets did not have to be held for any minimum period of time or generate a relatively large amount of revenue in order to satisfy the requirements of Regulation 1102(1)(c), L'Heureux-Dubé J. stated (at pp. 5377-8):

"In as technical a piece of legislation as the ITA, had Parliament or the executive wanted to specify any minimum period of time, materiality requirement, or financial statement content requirement, they would have used clear language to that effect."

Topics and taglines
Topic
Statutory Interpretation - Drafting Style
Tagline
absence of specific-hold period was telling
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
340044
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Hickman Motors Ltd. v. The Queen</em></strong>, 97 DTC 5363, [1997] 2 SCR 336 <strong>[abscence of specific-hold period was telling]</strong>",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}