Summary of Issue: Official Wordings Differ

Decision 40243 Full Text of Decision 40243

BOR in its decision to find falsity used the words "knowingly or should have known". Umpire found those words neutralized the word "knowingly" and ruled that BOR erred in adopting them as they do not meet the test according to the legislative provisions to determine falsity.

Decision A-0366.94 Full Text of Decision A-0366.94

The only basic factor in ss. 43(2) is the time spent. First, this is what the French version says unequivocally, the ambiguous English phrase "so minor in extent" having to be read within the confines of the unambiguous French words "il y consacre si peu de temps".

Decision 24632 Full Text of Decision 24632

Refer to: A-0366.94

Decision 21626 Full Text of Decision 21626

It is clear that the French version contains an error. This is the interpretation that must be given to these texts. This position agrees with that taken by the Supreme Court in CLARKE: resort may be had to the true meaning consistent with its objectives.

Decision 20398 Full Text of Decision 20398

English and French ss. 57(6) differ. The English version uses the more limited concept "farming" while the French speaks of "agriculture". Both are equally authoritative. In such a case, the interpretation that is most in keeping with the purpose of the provision is to be chosen.

Decision 15556 Full Text of Decision 15556

Disparaty between the English and French versions in Quebec's Real Estate Brokerage Act. In federal law, both versions have the same authority. In this case, the Quebec rules of interpretation must prevail; the French text prevails.

Decision A-0869.87 Full Text of Decision A-0869.87

In VIGNEAULT and GIROUX, this Court has held that such an interpretation (that the words "in respect of" qualified only the word "policy" and not "agreement") is not to be followed since it is not sustainable in the light of both English and French versions.

Decision A-0527.87 Full Text of Decision A-0527.87

According to judge Stone in VENNARI, it is not necessary that the sums paid pursuant to a collective agreement refer to the termination of employment for being exempted. Matter wrongly decided because decision was based exclusively on the English wording. The French wording is clear.

Decision A-0003.87 Full Text of Decision A-0003.87

This is not a case where an error was made in the French text of the Regulations. The only possible interpretation of the French version is easily reconcilable with the English version, whose meaning it clarifies. Consequently, the interpretation given in VENNARI must be rejected.

Decision 14611 Full Text of Decision 14611

Even if I came to the conclusion that the French version has a broader meaning than the English one, I must go by the most restrictive meaning since it would represent the meaning common to both versions, thus favouring consistent interpretation throughout the country. [p. 5]

Decision 13468 Full Text of Decision 13468

French and English versions not equivalent. Interpretation technique by which version with narrower meaning is only one to be applied, since it necessarily represents the common meaning, is the best possible approach in this case.

Decision 11626 Full Text of Decision 11626

Refer to: A-0055.86

Decision A-0055.86 Full Text of Decision A-0055.86

English and French wording of legislation differs: severance vs «cessation définitive». The Umpire gave the interpretation which was as consistent with the English as with the French version of this provision. The argument assuming there is an error in French while English is correct is dismissed.

Decision T-2420.83 Full Text of Decision T-2420.83

In view of this confusion, I prefer to rely on the more consistent version, which is the English text, in which the same word "otherwise" is used in each of the 3 provisions in question. [s. 37 and 38]

Decision A-0483.76 Full Text of Decision A-0483.76

Examines the distinction between the French and English versions of Reg. 172(3.2), now 57(5): "employed by any other employer" and "au service d'un autre employer"; a plan is not completely portable unless it is maintained when an employee becomes employed by any other employer whatsoever.