The Registrar of Motor Vehicles’ interpretation of its enabling statute was not entitled to deference and is reviewable on a standard of correctness. Where there is an apparent discrepancy between a statutory provision and a regulation as to which vehicles qualify as “special mobile equipment”, the statutory definition must prevail. When there is an ambiguity in the interpretation of a statutory provision, there is a residual presumption in favour of taxpayers.

25. October 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Registrar of Motor Vehicles – Permits and licences – Motor vehicles – Special mobile equipment – definition – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Statutory interpretation – Standard of review – Correctness Carter Brothers Ltd. v. New Brunswick (Registrar of Motor Vehicles), [2011] N.B.J. No. 304, ...