Marceau
J.A.
(orally):
We
do
not
need
to
hear
you,
Mr.
Ghan.
In
spite
of
the
able
presentation
of
Mr.
Fournier,
we
are
of
the
view
that
this
appeal
cannot
succeed.
As
we
understand
the
analysis
of
subsection
31(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
made
by
Mr.
Justice
Dickson
in
the
leading
Moldowan
case,
once
it
is
established
that
farming
is
for
the
taxpayer
a
business
and
not
merely
a
sideline,
that
the
taxpayer
is
engaged
in
farming
as
an
activity
from
which
he
can
derive
income
and
eventually,
i.e.
within
a
reasonable
period
of
time,
profit,
the
question
of
whether
farming
is,
in
his
case,
not
only
a
source
of
income
but
a
chief
source
of
income
either
alone
or
in
combination
with
“some
other
source”
is
a
question
of
fact
that
must
be
resolved
having
regard
to
all
surrounding
circumstances.
The
trial
judge,
as
we
read
his
reasons,
did
not
depart
from
that
premise.
Keeping
in
mind
that
the
taxpayer
here
is
the
corporation,
the
trial
judge’s
finding
that
farming
was
in
a
subordinate
position
to
the
appellant’s
aggregate
business
with
respect
to
the
personnel
involved,
the
time
spent,
the
capital
committed,
and
the
profitability
both
actual
and
potential,
is
based
on
an
analysis
which
in
the
whole
is,
in
our
view,
quite
sustainable.
There
is
nothing
in
the
learned
judge’s
reasoning
to
suggest
that
he
misconstrued
the
evidence
or
drew
from
it
wrong
inferences.
There
may
be
something
in
the
“economic
reality”
argument
advanced
by
counsel
for
the
appellant,
but
we
would
need
more
to
be
able
to
convince
ourselves
that
the
trial
judge’s
conclusion
was
not
open
to
him.
There
is
no
basis
on
which
to
set
aside
his
decision.
The
appeal
will
be
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content