Summary of Issue: Each Word Counts

Decision 23306 Full Text of Decision 23306

It seems clear that casual teaching is not equivalent to substitute teaching. The Commission argues that casual and substitute are synonymous concepts. I do not think two different words would have been used if only one category was intended.

Decision 19620 Full Text of Decision 19620

If s.29 overrides s.31, then s.31 becomes almost meaningless. There is a general principle of statutory interpretation which requires that when an ambiguity arises, statutes should be interpreted to avoid the conclusion that a provision or provisions are meaningless.

Decision A-1118.88 Full Text of Decision A-1118.88

Two possibilities: (i) and (ii). The legislature cannot be assumed to have spoken in vain when it enacted (i). If payments contemplated in (i) were also covered by (ii), subpara. (i) would be deprived of meaning. Application of (ii) excluded if the case is covered by (i).

Decision 15838 Full Text of Decision 15838

Refer to: A-1118.88

Decision 1909488 Full Text of Decision 1909488

In reading a statute it must be assumed that each term, each sentence and each paragraph has been deliberately drafted with a specific result in mind. Parliament chooses its words carefully: it does not speak "gratuitously". This is not to say that the provision has lost all meaning. Even if the word "financing" were to be excised, the provisions would still retain its usefulness as regards other disentitlement provisions therein contained. [p. 58]

Decision 13194 Full Text of Decision 13194

Parliament presumed not to speak and say nothing, and so I deduce that use of 2 different expressions [contract and custom in Reg. 57(3)(h)] implies desire to create 2 separate concepts.

Decision A-0175.84 Full Text of Decision A-0175.84

See summary indexed under S-0175.84

Decision A0834.82 Full Text of Decision A0834.82

For claimant's submission to prevail, the word "only" or a similar word would have to be read into ss.41(1). It is a well accepted principle of statutory interpretation that such an expedient is to be avoided, if at all possible.

Decision A-0436.80 Full Text of Decision A-0436.80

As per a reliable source of authority, it is a serious error to read into an Act of Parliament words which are not there and it is something to avoid. Respondent asks the Court to distinguish where the legislator did not and this is an error of interpretation.