Marceau,
J.A.:
—In
spite
of
the
able
argument
of
counsel
for
the
appellant,
we
have
not
been
persuaded
that
the
judge
of
first
instance
has
committed
any
reviewable
error
in
disposing
of
the
case
as
he
did.
It
may
be
that
some
of
the
words
he
used
to
explain
his
approach
in
verifying
the
Minister’s
assertion
that
the
appellant,
at
the
moment
he
purchased
the
land,
had
a
secondary
trading
intention,
may
have
been
partially
ill-chosen,
but,
on
the
whole,
the
words
as
we
read
them
certainly
do
not
reveal
a
misunderstanding
of
what
constitutes
a
secondary
intention
or
of
the
principles
applicable
to
it
as
they
have
been
developed
in
the
case
law
(see
Regal
Heights
Ltd.
v.
M.N.R.,
[1960]
C.T.C.
384;
60
D.T.C.
1270
at
C.T.C.
388
(D.T.C.
1272)
(S.C.C.)
and
Racine,
Demers
and
Nolin
v.
M.N.R.,
[1965]
2
Ex.
C.R.
338;
[1965]
C.T.C.
150;
65
D.T.C.
5098
(Ex.Ct.)).
On
the
other
hand,
there
was
ample
evidence
to
support
the
trial
judge's
finding
that
such
a
secondary
trading
intention
was
definitely
present
in
the
mind
of
the
appellant
at
the
moment
of
purchase,
the
most
striking
elements
of
such
evidence
being
directed
to
the
purely
speculative
and
exploratory
nature
of
the
primary
investment
intention,
to
the
importance
of
the
piece
of
property
involved
and
its
laying
in
the
path
of
development
and
to
the
expertise
and
long
experience
of
the
appellant
as
a
developer.
This
Court
has
no
ground
to
intervene.
The
appeal
will
therefore
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content