Brulé,
T.C.J.
[ORALLY]:—I
do
not
intend
to
review
all
the
facts
in
this
case.
Suffice
it
to
say
that
the
appellant
purchased
a
piece
of
property
in
1978
and
resold
it
in
1979.
He
told
the
Court
that
the
property
was
obtained
as
an
investment
for
his
retirement.
In
the
notice
of
appeal
and
in
his
testimony
the
appellant
wished
to
create
an
impression
that
he
had
not
dealt
in
the
buying
and
selling
of
property
to
any
extent
in
the
past.
Under
cross-examination
this
was
not
supported
and
the
evidence
of
an
employee
of
the
Audit
Division
of
Revenue
Canada,
referring
to
notes
taken
during
a
conversation
with
the
appellant,
indicated
that
there
was
a
possibility
to
sell
the
property
rather
than
to
retain
it
as
a
long-term
investment.
Even
if
the
Appellant
had
kept
the
property
for
a
period
of
time
in
order
to
provide
a
retirement
fund
it
would
have
been
necessary
to
develop
or
sell
at
a
profit
to
accomplish
this.
This
intention
was
present,
as
shown
by
the
appellant’s
testimony
at
the
time
of
purchase
of
the
property,
thus
signifying
that
a
sale
and
profit
motive
existed
even
though
no
definite
time
was
considered.
Such
an
intention
falls
within
the
Doctrine
of
Secondary
Intention
and
counsel
for
the
Minister
in
argument
referred
to
the
cases
of
Paul
Racine,
Amédée
Demers
and
Francois
Nolin
v.
M.N.R.,
[1965]
C.T.C.
150;
65
D.T.C.
5098,
and
Pierce
Investment
Corp.
v.
M.N.R.,
[1974]
C.T.C.
825;
74
D.T.C.
6608,
wherein
this
principle
is
discussed.
It
was
quite
obvious
that
one
of
the
purposes
of
the
purchase
was
to
sell
at
some
time
for
a
profit.
This
perhaps
occurred
prior
to
when
the
appellant
first
intended
but
nevertheless
he
did
sell
at
a
profit.
He
had
more
than
a
passive
knowledge
of
real
estate
sales
and
development
and
therefore
I
cannot
categorize
this
transaction
as
anything
but
an
adventure
in
the
nature
of
trade,
with
the
end
result
that
the
appellant’s
appeal
fails
and
is
hereby
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content