The following excerpt is from Canada (Canada Employment and Immigration commission) v. Gagnon, [1988] 2 SCR 29, 1988 CanLII 48 (SCC):
45. That is not to say that the provisions of the Act are a model of clarity. Trying to reconcile them requires an uncommon degree of dexterity, with the result that in borderline cases such as the one at bar, where two interpretations are possible, taking into account that the purpose of the Act is to compensate workers who are involuntarily unemployed, the worker must be given the benefit of the doubt (Abrahams v. Attorney General of Canada, supra).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.