Construction of Statutes
Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C., c. 870, s. C.01.041—Judicial review of respondent’s decision classifying Strauss Energy SIX, one of applicant’s products, as Schedule F drug under Regulations—Strauss Energy SIX containing “yohimbe bark”—Schedule F including listing for “yohimbine and its salts” but not referring to yohimbe bark specifically—Regulations, s. C.01.041 prohibiting retail over-the-counter sale of substance containing Schedule F drug—No ambiguity therein—Because Strauss Energy SIX containing yohimbine, albeit as constituent of bark, clearly caught by Regulations, s. C.01.041—Approach to interpretation in R. v. Dunn, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 677 adopted—Applicant’s argument not advancing public health interest—Based on implied exclusion rule of interpretation i.e. Parliament’s failure to mention thing constituting basis for inferring thing deliberately excluded—However, rule to be applied sparingly—In drafting substantive regulations, attention expected to be paid to use of consistent language, avoidance of redundancy, need for coherence—But unlikely careful attention to contextual detail would be paid when substances added to existing schedule—Schedule to legislation should not be readily resorted to as interpretative aid unless ambiguity existing in operative text of legislation—Application dismissed.
Strauss Enterprises Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Health) (T-2206-05, 2008 FC 1305, Barnes J., judgment dated November 21, 2008, 25 pp.)