Pinard
J.:—This
is
an
appeal
by
way
of
trial
de
novo
from
the
judgment
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
rendered
April
17,
1991,
which
upheld
the
decision
of
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue.
The
Minister
found
that
a
sum
of
$60,000
which
was
received
by
the
plaintiff
constituted
a
retiring
allowance
within
the
meaning
of
subsection
248(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
’’Act”)
and
therefore
must
be
included
in
computing
the
plaintiff’s
income
for
the
1988
taxation
year
pursuant
to
subparagraph
56(
1
)(a)(ii).
In
May
1985,
the
plaintiff
was
laid
off
from
his
position
as
senior
contracts
manager
at
Atomic
Energy
of
Canada
(AECL).
He
submitted
a
grievance
through
the
Society
of
Professional
Engineers
and
Associates
(SPEA)
seeking
reinstatement
as
provided
in
the
collective
agreement
between
AECL
and
SPEA
for
breach
of
the
seniority
provisions.
On
April
7,
1988,
AECL
agreed
to
pay
to
the
plaintiff
the
sum
of
$60,000
in
order
to
conclude
the
arbitration
proceedings.
On
the
same
day,
the
arbitrator
disposed
of
the
plaintiff’s
grievance
accordingly:
AWARD
In
accordance
with
the
parties’
settlement
resolving
this
arbitration
dispute
and
the
parameters
that
have
been
defined
for
awarding
the
grievor
an
absolute
sum
of
money
less
the
usual
deductions,
I
order
and
direct
the
employer
to
pay:
$60,000
The
proceedings
are
hereby
terminated.
Dated
this
April
7,
1988.
David
H.
Kates
Retiring
allowance".-
means
an
amount
(other
than
a
superannuation
or
pension
benefit
or
an
amount
received
as
a
consequence
of
the
death
of
an
employee)
received
(a)
upon
or
after
retirement
of
a
taxpayer
from
an
office
or
employment
in
recognition
of
his
long
service,
or
(b)
in
respect
of
a
loss
of
an
office
or
employment
of
a
taxpayer,
whether
or
not
received
as,
on
account
or
in
lieu
of
payment
of,
damages
or
pursuant
to
an
order
or
judgment
of
a
competent
tribunal
by
the
taxpayer
or,
after
his
death,
by
a
dependant
or
a
relation
of
the
taxpayer
or
by
the
legal
representative
of
the
taxpayer.
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue
assessed
the
plaintiff
on
the
amount
of
$60,000
under
subparagraph
56(
1
)(a)(ii)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
as
income
from
an
office
of
employment
in
the
year
in
which
it
was
received.
The
plaintiff
filed
a
notice
of
objection
which
was
denied
by
a
notice
of
confirmation
from
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue.
The
plaintiff
appealed
the
notice
of
confirmation
and
the
Tax
Court
dismissed
the
appeal
in
the
judgment
which
is
the
subject
of
the
present
appeal.
The
plaintiff
argues
that
the
amount
of
$60,000
was
compensation
for
the
extinction
of
the
right
to
have
his
grievance
arbitrated
and
therefore
the
award
was
the
disposition
of
a
chose
in
action
and
must
accordingly
be
considered
a
capital
gain.
The
plaintiff
further
argues
that
the
arbitrator’s
award
is
invalid
because
the
sole
remedy
for
improper
layoff
was,
pursuant
to
the
collective
agreement
and
the
Canada
Labour
Code,
reinstatement.
In
the
alternative,
the
plaintiff,
who
was
employed
in
1988
after
having
received
no
employment
income
for
the
two
preceding
years,
contends
that
for
equitable
reasons,
the
amount
of
$60,000
ought
to
have
been
computed
as
income
for
his
1986
and/or
1987
taxation
year(s)
when
he
received
no
employment
income.
Whether
or
not
the
validity
of
the
arbitrator’s
award
could
have
been
successfully
challenged
before
the
courts
is
not
relevant
here.
What
is
important
is
the
fact
that
the
award
was
not
challenged
and
that
the
amount
of
$60,000
was
received
and
the
benefit
accepted
by
the
plaintiff.
There
is
no
doubt
that
the
amount
was
received
by
the
plaintiff
in
respect
of
the
loss
of
his
employment
with
AECL.
Had
there
been
no
loss
of
employment,
there
would
have
been
no
grievance,
no
settlement,
no
award
and,
therefore,
no
payment
of
the
sum
to
the
plaintiff.
The
Supreme
Court
of
Canada,
in
The
Queen
v.
Savage,
[1983]
2
S.C.R.
428,
[1983]
C.T.C.
393,
83
D.T.C.
5409,
concluded
that
the
words
"in
respect
of",
in
a
provision
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
ought
to
be
given
the
wildest
possible
scope.
There,
at
page
440
(C.T.C.
399;
D.T.C.
5414),
Dickson
J.,
as
he
then
was,
cited
Nowegijick
v.
The
Queen,
[1983]
1
S.C.R.
29,
[1983]
C.T.C.
20,
83
D.T.C.
5041,
where
the
Court
dealt
with
those
words
as
follows:
The
words
"in
respect
of"
are,
in
my
opinion,
words
of
the
widest
possible
scope.
They
import
such
meanings
as
"in
relation
to",
"with
reference
to"
or
"in
connection
with’.
The
phrase
"in
respect
of"
is
probably
the
widest
of
any
expression
intended
to
convey
some
connection
between
two
related
subject
matters.
Here,
in
my
view,
the
use
of
those
words
within
the
definition
of
"retiring
allowance"
as
found
in
subsection
248(1)
of
the
Act
surely
conveys
a
connection
between
the
plaintiff’s
loss
of
employment
and
his
subsequent
receipt
of
the
amount
of
$60,000
as
paid
by
his
former
employer,
AECL.
This
amount,
in
the
circumstances,
is
caught
within
the
definition
of
"retiring
allowance"
and
is
therefore
to
be
included
when
computing
income
under
subsection
56(1).
Given
the
wording
in
the
latter
provision:
..there
shall
be
included
in
the
computing
the
income
of
a
taxpayer
for
a
taxation
year,
(a)
any
amount
received
by
the
taxpayer
in
the
year
as...
11)
a
retiring
allowance....
[Emphasis
added.]
it
is
clear
that
the
amount
of
$60,000
received
by
the
plaintiff
during
his
taxation
year
1988
must
be
included
in
computing
his
income
for
that
year.
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue
had
no
jurisdiction
to
include
the
amount
in
computing
the
income
of
the
plaintiff
for
any
other
taxation
year.
For
all
those
reasons,
the
plaintiff’s
appeal
must
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Appeal
dismissed.