Cases
Medovarski v. The Queen, 2005 SCC 51
McLachlin C.J.C. at para. 24-25:
In interpreting bilingual statutes, the statutory interpretation should begin with a search for the shared meaning between the two versions. ...
First, one must apply the rules of statutory interpretation to determine whether or not there is an apparent discordance, and if so, whether there is a common meaning between the French and English versions. "[W]here one of the two versions is broader than the other, the common meaning would favour the more restricted or limited meaning". ... The common meaning is the version that is plain and not ambiguous. If neither version is ambiguous, or if they both are, the common meaning is normally the narrower version.
The Queen v. Agazarian, 2004 DTC 6366, 2004 FCA 32
Although the French version of s. 152(4)(b)(i) (unlike the preamble to the English version) did not contain the phrase "at any time", thereby perhaps suggesting that only one reassessment could be made under s. 152(4)(b)(i), it had been judicially established "that there is no general rule that the more restrictive version is the intended meaning" (p. 6376). Furthermore, it had been established that "in order to ascertain Parliament's intent in enacting the provision, one may look to the former version of the text", and here both the English and French version of the predecessor to the current s. 152(4)(b)(i) indicated that the Minister had the power to reassess more than once.
The Queen v. Markevich, 2003 DTC 5185, 2003 SCC 9
The Court concluded (at p. 5192) in considering the interpretation of section 32 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (Canada) that "the English version best reflects the intent of the legislature".
Jarvis v. The Queen, 2002 DTC 7547, 2002 SCC 73
The Court noted (at p. 7562) that "the words employed in the English and French versions of the federal statute are equally authoritative and should be read together in order to ascertain the proper meaning of the terms", but went on to note that in this instance, "the French version ... provides negligible assistance here, since the two terms are rendered in equally wide scope".
S.T.B. Holdings Ltd. v. The Queen, 2002 DTC 7450, 2002 FCA 386
Recourse was made to French dictionary definitions to shed light on the meaning of the English version of s. 245(7).
Hogg v. The Queen, 2002 DTC 7037, 2002 FCA 177
Reference to the French version of s. 8(1)(h.1) of the Act eliminated any doubt that the motor vehicle expenses in respect of which a taxpayer could claim a deduction under that provision must have been incurred in the course of performing the duties of his office.
See Also
Bolduc c. R., [2013] GSTC 38, 2013 TCC 77
Subparagraph 304(5)(b)(iv) of the French ETA requires that the person applying for an extension have reasonable grounds to do so. This requirement was missing from the English version. Paris J found that, because the more restrictive version prevails in the event of a direct conflict (Daoust, 2004 SCC 6, at paras 27-29), the appellant was entitled to rely on the English version. Because the Minister's dismissal of the appellant's extension relied heavily on subparagraph (iv), and given that the applicant had met the requirements in subparas. (i)-(iii), Paris J reversed the Minister's dismissal.
Genex Communications v. The Queen, 2010 DTC 1064 [at 2840], 2009 TCC 583, rev'd 2011 DTC 5061 [at 5707], 2010 FCA 353)
Although the French version was ambiguous, the English version of the definition of "commercial debt obligation" in s. 80(1) clearly included non-interest bearing debt obligations. Favreau J. cited Medovarski to establish that, where one language version is ambiguous and the other not, the unambiguous version prevails. Therefore, the taxpayers could not benefit from the potentially narrower interpretation of the French version.
943372 Ontario Inc. v. The Queen, 2007 DTC 1051, 2007 TCC 294
After noting that in the English version of s. 152(4.01) the "matter" in respect of which the Minister may reassess outside the normal reassessment period must be a matter in respect of which the taxpayer has made a misrepresentation of the type described in s. 152(4.01), Bowman C.J. noted that the French version contained no such limitation, and that the more restrictive English version appeared to be more consistent with the scheme of the Act.
Cleveland v. The Queen, 2003 DTC 2199, 2004 TCC 34
S.118.5(1)(b) of the Act, which required the taxpayer to be in full-time "attendance" at a foreign university in order to qualify for the tuition tax credit, was found to require physical presence at the university, a conclusion that was "strongly supported" by reference to the French version, which used the "fréquente".