Case information

Legislation — Interpretation — Adoption of ordinary meaning for classification of goods for import purposes — Canada Border Services Agency’s determination of tariff classification of goods upheld on appeal to tribunal and on statutory appeal to Court of Appeal — Applicant arguing technical meaning should be adopted rather than ordinary meaning — Tribunal concluding it was bound by previous Court of Appeal decision – Court of Appeal unable to depart from its previous applicable decision and dismissing appeal — When does the presumption of ordinary meaning (as opposed to technical or scientific meaning) apply to the words of an Act —When the presumption applies, how may it be rebutted?

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (“CITT”) dismissed the applicant, Best Buy Canada Ltd.’s (“Best Buy”) appeal of the classification of certain goods, wine coolers, for tariff purposes. The CITT followed an earlier decision by the Federal Court of Appeal: Danby Products Limited v. Canada (Border Services Agency), 2021 FCA 82. On appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, Best Buy argued that Danby should be reversed. The Federal Court of Appeal determined it was required to follow Danby unless it was manifestly wrong or could be distinguished on its facts. It concluded that Danby had decided the issues in this case, particularly the issues of legislative interpretation, and that the threshold to depart from that decision was not met. It dismissed the appeal.