French and English Version

In finding that the phrase “as a consequence of” in s. 161(7)(b)(iv) required a causal connection, Woods JA stated (at paras. 32-34):

[B]oth the English and French versions of the proviso imply a causal element. Beginning with the English, the phrase “as a consequence of” clearly imports a causal element.

Similarly, the French version has a causal element by virtue of the corresponding phrase “à la suite de laquelle”, which can be translated as “by reason of” (Le Petit Robert de la langue française (Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert, 2022)). I note that the Tax Court found the French version to mean “following which”, a translation that lacks a clear causal connotation (Decision at para. 24). Although “following which” is an accepted translation in French dictionaries, the French phrase also has the broader meaning of “by reason of”, as mentioned.

The proper approach is to determine, if possible, a meaning which is shared between the English and French versions (R. v. S.A.C., 2008 SCC 47, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 675 at paras. 14-16). In the phrase at issue, the causal element reflects the shared meaning, and it is the meaning to be adopted.

Noël CJ effectively found that the word “peut” (may) in the French version of s. 118.1(11) meant the same thing as the word “shall” in the English version, stating in this regard (at para. 53):

[T]he use of the word “peut” in the French version illustrates how “an official who is permitted to do a thing may, in addition, be obliged to do it” (Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes …).

Fitzpatrick J., after noting (at para. 101) that the French version of s. 152(4)(a)(i) rendered “misrepresentation” as “misrepresentation of facts” and (at para. 102) that in Canada v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554 at 618 “the court reiterated… that the French and English versions of legislation are equally authoritative and, where there is a discrepancy, the meaning that furthers the purpose of the legislation is to prevail,” found (at para. 126) that “a statement of a filing position that, even if that position may be incorrect, involves a determination of law or mixed fact and law will not be a misrepresentation if that filing position is reasonable."

After noting ambiguities in the French version of s. 165(3). Boswell J stated (at paras. 45-46):

Under the Daoust approach [2004 SCC 6, at paras. 27 to 31, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 217], the first step is to determine whether there is discordance between the English and French versions of the provision in question. The second step is to determine whether the common or dominant meaning is, according to the ordinary rules of statutory interpretation, consistent with Parliament’s intent. Daoust further states (at para 28) that if there is ambiguity in one version but not the other, the court must look for the meaning common to both versions. If the first interpretation of the French version of subsection 220(2.1) above is used, there is a common meaning between the English and French versions. The shared meaning, as put forward in the English version of the provision, which is not ambiguous, is clearly consistent with Parliament’s intent to define the forms, receipts, and other documents, the filing of which can be waived by the Minister.

Accordingly, since only the French version is ambiguous, the French interpretation that fits with the English interpretation, namely, the first French interpretation above, should be adopted. Pursuant to the shared meaning rule, this common meaning is presumed to be the meaning intended by the legislature... .

In addressing the interpretation of ETA Sched. V, Pt. VI, s. 22, which exempted “A supply of a service, made by a municipality … of ... installing, repairing, maintaining or interrupting the operation of a water distribution, sewerage or drainage system,” Pelletier JA first noted (at para. 39) that “no matter how one reads the sentence, it is ungrammatical and ambiguous,” but then stated (at paras. 41, 44-45):

It is clear from the French version that the service supplied by the municipality is that of installing, repairing or maintaining a water distribution network or a sewer or drainage system, or interrupting the operation of such a network or system. Maintaining refers to the network or system and not to the operation of such a network or system.

The primary sense of the verb [“entrenir”] is sufficiently broad to include and, in my view, does include, the operation of a thing or a system. …

As for the meaning of the verbs “to maintain” and “entretenir”, there is an overlap between the two versions, with the French verb emphasizing a meaning which is present in English, though not as the primary meaning. The overlapping meaning is the shared meaning. As a result, I would conclude, as did the Tax Court Judge, that section 22 is broad enough to include the “operation” of the wastewater disposal facility by the City.

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.

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 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".

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".

Recourse was made to French dictionary definitions to shed light on the meaning of the English version of s. 245(7).

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.