|
Statutory Interpretation - Noscitur a Sociis. Toronto Regional Real Estate Board v. Sunderland
In Toronto Regional Real Estate Board v. Sunderland (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed appeals, these brought against the granting of motions to strike the claim in a proposed class action on grounds that they "not disclose a reasonable cause of action" - here brought "under the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34 and relat[ing] to the commissions paid for buyer real estate brokerage services."
Here the court considers the 'associated words' rule ('noscitur a sociis'):[69] We start with the alleged error in statutory interpretation. The defendants rely on the maxim noscitur a sociis, meaning that a word is "“known by its associates”", in support of their argument that the term "“control”" must relate to "“quantum of the price”": Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj, 2012 SCC 55 at para. 40 [Opitz], quoting 2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Quebec (Régie des permis d’alcool), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 919 at para. 195 (per L’Heureux-Dubé J., concurring). This principle, also called the associated words rule, is typically applied when interpreting terms enumerated in a list which are intended to serve an analogous function. The rule presumes that each individual term should be interpreted in light of the common features shared by all the terms in the list: Opitz at paras. 41-43; Ruth Sullivan, The Construction of Statutes, 7th ed. (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2022), § 8.06[1]. . Canada v. Bowker
In Canada v. Bowker (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal considered a Crown appeal from a Tax Court cost award. In this quote the court considers the statutory interpretation doctrine of 'noscitur a sociis':[48] The question which arises is why a penalty of very broad application (assuming the interpretation proposed by the respondent) would be tucked away in a paragraph within a subsection dealing with a specific failure to file certain documents. This question can be answered in part by reference to the canon of construction known as noscitur a sociis:Counsel for the respondent submits that this finding can be justified by the rule of interpretation noscitur a sociis. According to that rule, “[a]n expression's meaning may be revealed by its association with others” and where general and specific words are associated together and are capable of analogous meaning, the general words should be restricted to the specific meaning unless this would be contrary to the clear intention of Parliament. Vancouver Art Metal Works Ltd v. Canada (C.A.), 1993 CanLII 2930 (FCA), [1993] 2 F.C. 179 at 185. See also McDiarmid Lumber Ltd. v. God's Lake First Nation, 2006 SCC 58, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 846 at para. 30
|
