The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles (6th ed. 2007) defines “pursuant to” as “consequent and conforming to; in accordance with” (p. 2412). The French version of s. 258(1)(c) and (g) is to similar effect, using the phrase “conformément à”. For the meaning of “pursuant to”, see also: Dastous v. Matthews-Wells Co., 1949 CanLII 61 (SCC), [1950] S.C.R. 261; Minister of National Revenue v. Armstrong, 1956 CanLII 71 (SCC), [1956] S.C.R. 446, at p. 447. If the reasonable grounds referred to in s. 254(3) are not a precondition to the operation of s. 258(1)(c) and (g), then why is there a reference to s. 254(3) at all? That such words are meaningless is not plausible. If reasonable grounds under s. 254(3) are not a precondition, then what does the reference to “pursuant to” in the opening words of both s. 258(1)(c) and (g) mean? That such words have no legal effect is implausible. My colleague, Justice Moldaver, finds that these words simply identify the sample to which the provision applies (para. 30). In my respectful view, this cannot be the case.
"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.