Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Classification of surgical gloves under tariff item 9977.00.00 of the Customs Tariff as "for use in" surgical instruments (scalpels) was the central dispute between the Attorney General of Canada and Medline Canada Corporation.

• Interpretation of the statutory definition of "for use in" — specifically whether gloves can be considered "attached to" scalpels when the only connection is through a surgeon's hand — raised a pure question of law.

• Textual analysis of both English and French versions of the Customs Tariff revealed that "attached to" and its French equivalent "par voie de fixation" require an independent physical connection, not merely being held together by human intervention.

• The "associated words" rule of statutory interpretation was applied, with terms like "wrought" and "incorporated into" lending colour to "attached to," suggesting a high degree of physical integration into the host goods.

• Contextual distinctions among "for use in," "for use with," and "for use by" in Chapter 99 demonstrated that Parliament deliberately chose different language for different relationships between goods and users.

• Chapter 99's restrictive purpose — eliminating duties only for specific qualifying goods — militated against the broad interpretation adopted by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

Background and the goods at issue

This case arose from a decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal), dated January 29, 2024, which classified various models of surgical gloves imported by Medline Canada Corporation (Medline) under tariff item 9977.00.00 of the Customs Tariff. That classification would have entitled the gloves to duty-free importation into Canada on the basis that they were "for use in" surgical instruments, specifically scalpels. Two proceedings were brought by the Attorney General of Canada before the Federal Court of Appeal: an appeal on a question of law under paragraph 68(1)(b) of the Customs Act (Docket A-159-24) and, in the alternative, an application for judicial review (Docket A-81-24). Both matters were heard together by Justices Stratas, Mactavish, and LeBlanc on March 11, 2025, with the judgment delivered on April 16, 2026.

The importation and Medline's duty refund claims

Medline imported the surgical gloves between November 2015 and March 2018. Upon entry, the gloves were classified under tariff item 4015.11.00 as surgical gloves of vulcanized rubber other than hard rubber — a classification that was not in dispute between the parties. Some years later, Medline requested duty refunds under section 74 of the Customs Act, arguing the gloves were eligible for duty relief under the Special Classification Provisions set out in Chapter 99, and specifically under tariff item 9977.00.00, which covers "articles for use in" instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental, or veterinary sciences. The Canada Border Services Agency (the Agency) denied the refund requests, finding that the gloves did not meet the "for use in" requirement. Medline sought re-determination of that finding by the Agency's President, which also proved unsuccessful, leading Medline to appeal the President's decision to the Tribunal pursuant to subsection 67(1) of the Customs Act.

The Tribunal's decision and the "for use in" definition

Before the Tribunal, Medline called two witnesses: its senior director of clinical and training services, and a senior surgeon recognized by the Tribunal as an expert witness in the field of surgery and the use of surgical gloves in an operating room. The Agency did not call any witnesses. The Tribunal applied a three-part framework to determine whether the gloves qualified under tariff item 9977.00.00: whether the goods were (i) "articles," (ii) "for use in," and (iii) instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences. Only the second element — "for use in" — was contested. Under subsection 2(1) of the Customs Tariff, "for use in" means the goods must be "wrought or incorporated into, or attached to" other goods referred to in the tariff item. The parties agreed the gloves were neither "wrought" nor "incorporated into" scalpels, so the Tribunal focused on whether they were "attached to" the scalpels. Applying a long-standing two-prong test requiring both "functional joining" and "physical connection," the Tribunal concluded that the gloves satisfied both requirements — finding that they enhanced the function of surgical instruments by providing a necessary layer that increases grip, decreases the risk of the instrument slipping, increases precision through improved tactile feedback, and provides a sterile barrier to protect both surgeon and patient from infection. On physical connection, the Tribunal found that the direct contact, albeit temporary, between the surgical glove and scalpel, and the special and mandatory relationship between them for the duration of the surgery, denoted a "real and effective connection."

The tariff provisions and statutory interpretation framework

Tariff item 9977.00.00 provides duty-free treatment for articles "for use in" instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental, or veterinary sciences. The definition of "for use in" at subsection 2(1) of the Customs Tariff is critical: in the English version, the goods must be "wrought or incorporated into, or attached to" the host goods; in the French version, they must "entrer dans la composition d'autres marchandises par voie d'ouvraison, de fixation ou d'incorporation." The Court applied the modern approach to statutory interpretation — reading the words in their entire context, in their grammatical and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament. The Court also applied the three-step methodology for bilingual enactments: comparing both versions to assess whether any discordance exists, looking for a meaning common to both versions, and ensuring that meaning reflects parliamentary intent.

The Court's analysis on "attached to" and physical connection

The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the Attorney General that the Tribunal had impermissibly expanded the meaning of "attached to." Drawing on English and French dictionary definitions, the Court found that "to attach" ordinarily means "connected, fastened or joined to something," and more explicitly, to "fasten or join (a thing) to another thing, or a place or position, by sticking, tying, stitching, clipping, etc.; to affix." This requires some form of independent physical connection between the article and the host goods. The French version reinforced this narrow interpretation, as "fixation" means "assujettir solidement à ou contre quelque chose." The Court found no discordance between the two versions: both require a form of physical connection between the gloves and the scalpel that goes beyond merely being held together in one's hand. Further, applying the "associated words" rule, the Court held that the terms "wrought" and "incorporated into" lend colour to "attached to," and their broadest common denominator suggests a fairly high degree of physical incorporation or integration into the host goods. The Court also noted the important contextual distinction among three expressions used in Chapter 99 — "for use in," "for use with," and "for use by" — each describing different relationships between goods, goods and specific uses, or goods and users. Medline's claim effectively amounted to seeking duty relief on the basis that the gloves are used with scalpels, but the tariff item requires use in them.

The Court's analysis on joint functionality

On the functionality prong, the Court rejected the Tribunal's finding that the gloves enhanced the function of surgical instruments. The Court held that the gloves rather enhance the ability of the surgeon while reducing the risks of infection in the operating room — benefits to the user, not enhancements to the scalpel itself. Tariff item 9977.00.00 requires that classifications be based on the articles' use "in" surgical instruments; it does not apply to articles "for use with" surgical instruments or "for use by" surgeons. The two — enhancements to the scalpel itself and the benefits of the gloves to surgeons — cannot be conflated without impermissibly expanding the meaning of "for use in." No prior decisions supported the theory that gloves and scalpels are either physically connected to one another or functionally joined.

The ruling and outcome

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision by Justice LeBlanc (concurred in by Justices Stratas and Mactavish), allowed the Attorney General's appeal and set aside the Tribunal's Decision. Exercising its power under paragraph 52(c)(i) of the Federal Courts Act, the Court declared the gloves at issue to be not classifiable under tariff item 9977.00.00 of the Customs Tariff. Costs in the appeal were granted in favor of the Attorney General of Canada, the successful party. The separate judicial review application (Docket A-81-24) was dismissed without costs, as it was rendered unnecessary by the appeal's success. The exact amount of the duty refunds that Medline had sought was not specified in the decision.