Stone
J.A.:
—
This
is
an
appeal
from
a
judgment
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
of
July
4,
1996.
A
companion
appeal
is
also
before
us
in
Court
File
No.
A-434-95.
The
decisions
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada,
containing
an
Agreed
Statement
of
Facts,
are
now
fully
reported
in
D’Amico
v.
Canada,
[1995]
2
C.T.C.
2686.
The
learned
Tax
Court
Judge
found
that
there
was
no
reasonable
expectation
of
profit
in
the
circumstances,
that
“there
was
to
be
no
profit
in
CRL
and
none
was
intended”
(at
page
21)
and,
accordingly,
that
the
losses
claimed
were
not
deductible
in
1986.
The
evidence
before
the
Tax
Court
Judge,
in
addition
to
the
agreed
facts,
included
a
good
deal
of
documentary
evidence
—
some
of
it
complex
—
as
well
as
oral
evidence
adduced
by
both
the
Appellant
and
the
Respondent
and
discovery
evidence
read
in
by
the
Appellant.
It
is
apparent
that
the
findings
of
the
Tax
Court
Judge
are
based
on
its
totality.
In
our
view
it
has
not
been
demonstrated
that
the
Tax
Court
Judge,
in
concluding
as
he
did,
made
any
palpable
and
overriding
error
which
affected
his
assessment
of
the
facts:
Stein
v.
“Kathy
K”
(The),
[1976]
2
S.C.R.
802,
62
D.L.R.
(3d)
1
at
page
808
(D.L.R.
5).
Despite
a
document
that
purports
to
be
a
joint
venture
agreement
to
which
CRL
is
a
party,
we
are
satisfied
that
it
is
implicit
in
the
Tax
Court
Judge’s
findings
that
no
true
joint
venture
existed
in
the
taxation
in
issue
and,
accordingly,
that
he
rejected
the
suggestion
of
a
business
being
carried
on
by
CRL
in
an
active
joint
venture.
We
see
no
basis
in
law
for
interfering
with
his
findings
of
fact
or
with
his
application
of
relevant
principles
of
law.
Like
the
Tax
Court
Judge,
we
find
it
unnecessary
to
consider
the
remaining
issues.
The
appeal
will
be
dismissed
with
one
set
of
costs
in
this
appeal
and
in
the
appeal
in
Court
File
No.
A-434-95.
A
copy
of
these
reasons
will
be
filed
in
Court
File
No.
A-434-95
and
shall
upon
filing
become
reasons
for
judgment
in
that
matter.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content