Noscitur a Sociis

In the course of discussing the meaning of “congregation” in the phrase “ministering to a diocese, parish or congregation” in s. 8(1)(c), Campbell J discussed the noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis rules as follows (at paras. 193-194):

In very general terms, the difference between these two statutory construction terms is that the noscitur a sociis rule is used, where the meaning of a general word in a series of words is to be determined, then all of the words or terms in the series are engaged in order to define the commonality among them so that a particular meaning can be assigned to that word or term that is in question. Ejusdem generis determines the meaning of a general word used at the end of a list of specific items by confining it to subjects that are comparable to the earlier terms or in other words, by determining the commonality in order to ascertain what types of items might fall within the broader general term that the statute uses. By contrast in using the noscitur a sociis rule, all of the items in the series are reviewed in order to determine their commonality and, in turn, give meaning to the general term utilized in the series.

Clearly it is the associated words rule or noscitur a sociis that should be used in interpreting clause 8(1)(c)(ii)(B) of the Act.

Paris J rejected CRA arguments that independent contractors who provided personal care services to a B.C. for-profit residential care home, including assistance with bathing, dressing, grooming, feeding, and incontinence management, were not thereby providing a (GST-exempt) "homemaker service," which was defined to mean "a household or personal service, such as cleaning, laundering, meal preparation and child care, that is rendered to an individual who, due to age, infirmity or disability, requires assistance." He stated (at paras. 46-47):

The use of specific examples after a general term in legislation does not restrict the meaning of the general term to cases similar to the specific examples. Rather, the presumption is that, in using the specific examples, Parliament intended to extend the meaning of the general term to things that would ordinarily have been seen as not falling within the general term. …

[T]he noscitur a sociis rule is inapplicable in this case because it is normally applied when interpreting terms in a list: R. v. Daoust, 2004 SCC 6 at paragraph 60. Here, the words "personal service" are general words that are part of the term "household or personal service" which is followed by a list of examples.

The taxpayer unsuccessfully argued that Reg. 1102(1)(e)(iv) referred "to decorative objects and not objects that are used, as is the case with the musical instruments in question" (para. 25). It submitted that the noscitur a sociis principle applied, so that "any other antique object" must refer to objects sharing qualities with "antique furniture." Jorré J noted the statement of Pierre‑André Côté in The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada, 4th ed., Éditions Thémis, 2011 at para. 1179 that:

Although a good servant, the noscitur a sociis principle may prove to be a poor master. It can be misleading and should be handled with care.

He then stated (at para. 33):

Here, the Regulations do not mention "other similar object" or "decorative object". The context of the provision does not suggest a limitation other than objects that are more than 100 years old.

V.A. Miller J was assisted in her conclusion that "complaint" in s. 239(3) of the Act meant the initiating of a judicial proceeding by its appearance in s. 239(3) in the phrase "information or complaint", and stated (at para. 17):

"If nothing else, the principle of noscitur a sociis that is the associated word rule, invites the reader to look for the common feature between the words linked by 'and' or 'or'. In this situation, the common feature between 'information'; and 'complaint' are that they are both processes for bringing a matter before the court."