Rowe,
D.T.C.C.J.
(orally):—This
has
nothing
to
do
with
—
I’m
not
going
to
spend
—
waste
any
more
time
with
it.
We
have
the
opinion
of
an
expert,
who
you
called
as
part
of
your
case
to
establish
that
the
shares
in
question
were
worth
80
cents.
That's
it.
Charter
arguments
are
absolutely,
totally,
completely
100
per
cent
without
merit.
I
have
asked
you
on
several
other
occasions
if
there
is
any
evidence
that
you
can
present
on
the
value
of
the
shares,
and
your
answer
in
each
and
every
case
has
been
no.
MR.
VALLABH:
Oh,
would
you
like
to
have
a
copy
of
these
case?
HIS
HONOUR:
I
don’t
know
what
it
is.
MR.
VALLABH:
They
talk
about
Revenue
Canada
in
determining
fair
market
value
on
the
basis
other
than
financial
statement
is
not
correct.
HIS
HONOUR:
Well,
that
may
be
in
that
particular
case,
and
it
may
be
that
there
was
competing
evidence
of
value.
There
is
absolutely
nothing
before
me
to
suggest
that
Mr.
Turnbull
did
not,
in
fact,
proceed
on
an
evaluation
within
the
parameters
of
a
professional
in
his
particular
field.
And
there
is
absolutely
nothing
before
me
to
suggest
that
the
Minister
made
any
error
at
all
in
fixing
the
value,
fair
market
value
of
the
shares
in
question
on
December
1,
1989,
at
80
cents
a
share.
And
there
is
nothing
before
me
whatsoever
to
indicate
that
there
is
any
error
whatsoever
on
the
part
of
the
Minister
by
including
in
employment
income
—
a
benefit
in
the
amount
of
$9,600,
pursuant
to
subsection
7(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act"),
and
allowing
therefrom
a
deduction
in
respect
of
the
benefit
of
$3,200.
And
there
is
nothing
before
me
which
would
allow
me
in
any
way
to
find
a
value
other
than
the
value
established
by
the
evidence,
namely
80
cents
a
share,
and
to
do
so
would
be
merely
hanging
my
hat
on
something
unsupported
by
the
facts,
or
by
just
reaching
into
the
air
and
grabbing
another
value.
I
have
not
been
given
any
alternative
value.
I
have
not
been
given
any
alternative
evidence
as
to
the
method
of
determination
of
value,
and
therefore,
there
is
nothing
else
before
me
other
than
the
uncontradicted
evidence
that
it's
80
cents
a
share.
MR.
VALLABH:
Okay,
I’ll
have
to
—
can
I
submit
these
trading
value
during
previous
years?
HIS
HONOUR:
They
don't
change
the
opinion
of
the
—
MR.
VALLABH:
Well,
Your
Honour,
as
you
know,
there
is
no
expert
from
our
side.
HIS
HONOUR:
That's
right.
MR.
VALLABH:
The
only
I
can
submit,
the
plaintiff
never
made
a
penny
out
of
it,
other
than
what
has
been
declared.
If
we
may
be
given
the
opportunity
to
bring
an
expert,
who
will
than
testify
to
whatever
is
required.
If
not,
then
based
on
these
court
cases,
which
specify
that
if
the
market
is
fluctuating,
and
heavily
fluctuating,
and
also
it
says
that
the
evaluator
must
use
audited
financial
statements
in
their
value,
and
the
fact
that
Circular
89-3
has
been
provided
to
me
by
Revenue
Canada,
and
they
have
said
that
this
is
the
criteria.
The
evaluator,
he's
not
my
evaluator.
He's
Revenue
Canada's
evaluator,
and
he
says,
well,
this
is
the
value,
and
I’m
not
the
expert.
What
am
I
supposed
to
do.
HIS
HONOUR:
You
could
have
gotten
your
own
expert,
you
had
that
right.
For
the
reasons
I
indicated
earlier,
I
have
found
nothing
whatsoever
on
the
evidence
—
MR.
VALLABH:
Your
Honour,
can
you
adjourn
this
case?
HIS
HONOUR:
No.
You're
not
getting
an
adjournment.
For
the
reasons
I
indicated
before,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content