Absurdities

Before concluding that s. 32 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (Canada) applied to statutory collection procedures under the Act as well as to Court procedures, Rothstein J.A. noted that to interpret s. 32 as applying only to court procedures would lead "to the perplexing conclusion that while court proceedings are subject to provincial limitation laws, the statutory collection procedures are not" and stated (at p. 5313):

"The Income Tax Act may contain incongruous provisions or provisions that appear to be inconsistent. However, where it is possible to construe legislation according to its words, so as to avoid incongruity or inconsistency, such construction is to be preferred."

Pratte, J.A. stated (at p. 5411) that he was willing to adopt, with respect to s. 132(2) an interpretation that "stretches the meaning of the words used in the section" but which is "in harmony with the obvious purpose of the provision" and which avoids an absurd result.

"Where the language of a statute is reasonably capable of two constructions the court, as interpreter and not legislator, may adopt that which is just and reasonable rather than one which is patently unreasonable." (p. 5621)

"In interpreting a statute the Court must opt for an interpretation that does not lead to an illogical result which Parliament is not deemed to have wished." (p. 6156) The taxpayer's argument that there was an "'immense loophole' in the Act and that owing to this 'loophole' the Act cannot apply to its situation" was rejected.

The phrase "in respect of" in a section was given the meaning "with reference to", "in order to give sense and purpose to the section and avoid incongruous results ... . The fact that the Legislation chose to proceed by piecemeal amendments, resulting in an inelegant jumble of tax bases and internal inconsistencies, is no reason to frustrate the obvious intention of the Legislature"