Interpretation Act definition of Canada vs Pseudo-law

[14]         "the appellant denies that she was a resident of Canada for the 2009 taxation year since, in the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, “Canada” is defined as including “the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada”. Using the legal maxim inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, which means “the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another”, the appellant argues that she was not a resident of Canada in 2009 since she was not residing in or on water."

...

Interpretation Act’s definition of “Canada”

[25]         Notwithstanding the word “includes”, the appellant argues that the term “Canada” as defined in the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, embraces only the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada.

[26]         It should first be noted that section 12 of the Interpretation Act states:

Every enactment is deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects.

[27]         The appellant’s position ignores the fact that the ordinary meaning of “Canada” is first and foremost its land and that the purpose of the statutory definition is to extend that meaning to include also the internal waters and territorial sea of Canada.

[28]         The appellant’s position that, for the purposes of the ITA, Ontario is not part of Canada is simply not tenable.

http://canlii.ca/t/fr79z