Simon's Legal Resources

Statutory Interpretation - "Hold"

. Canada v. Independent Order of Foresters

In Canada v. Independent Order of Foresters (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal allowed a Crown appeal, this involving the taxation of "life insurance and accident and sickness insurance (accident insurance)" operated by a fraternal benefit society (which themselves are tax-exempt under the ITA).

Here the court considers the statutory interpretive meaning of "hold" (as in holding property):

[112] Third, the property cannot have been used or held in the course of carrying on an insurance business. The concepts of holding property and using property are distinct: Munich Reinsurance Co. v. Canada, 2001 FCA 365 at para. 28. Where different words are used, there is a presumption different meanings are intended: Sullivan at §8.04. One meaning of hold is "“to have possession or ownership of or have at one’s disposal”": Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary, online: Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com, sub verbo "“hold”". Although one may simultaneously hold and use an asset, one may also hold an asset without using it.

At paras 134-158 the court considers cases interpreting the term "property used or held in the course of carrying on a business".

. Grenon v. Canada

In Grenon v. Canada (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal considered the specific statutory interpretation of the term "hold":

[145] Before I examine other uses of "“hold”" in the Income Tax Act and Regulations, I acknowledge that "“hold”" has many possible meanings. However, I am satisfied that, in the context of the Income Tax Act, "“hold”" is intended to mean "“own”", unless the context in which it is used indicates otherwise. I see nothing in Regulation 4801 that suggests hold is not intended to mean own. To the contrary, as noted in paragraph 161 below, the prescribed conditions were once expressly described as concerning dispersal of ownership.