An award of "additional interest" received by taxpayer pursuant to s. 66(4) of the Expropriation Act (Alberta) (a provision which required repayment of such amount in circumstances where an expropriating authority offered less than 80% of the amount ultimately awarded and the Expropriation Board was of the opinion that such lower figure was due to the fault of the expropriating authority) did not, by its nature, represent compensation for the land inventory that had been taken. Robertson J.A. found that the decision in E.R. Fisher v. The Queen, 86 DTC 6364 (FCTD) could no longer be considered good law and went on to state (at p. 6083) that "you cannot treat a non-compensatory receipt in the same manner as a compensatory one simply because both arise from the same transaction".
Robertson J.A. also found that the definition of "proceeds of disposition" did not have the effect of deeming proceeds of disposition of land inventory to be proceeds of disposition of a capital property and asserted that what then were ss.54(a)(iv) and (v) were added to the Act to counter the decision in Kicking Horse Forest Products Ltd. v. British Columbia (Minister of Finance),  6 WWR 343 (BCSC), affirmed  5 WWR 242 (BCCA), affirmed  1 S.C.R. 711 to the effect that an expropriation did not constitute a sale within the meaning of the Logging Tax Act (BC).