Urie,
J
(per
curiam)
(judgment
delivered
from
the
Bench):—This
is
an
appeal
from
a
judgment
of
the
Trial
Division
dismissing
the
appellant’s
appeal
from
the
respondent’s
assessment
for
income
tax
for
the
1968
taxation
year
arising
out
of
the
sale
of
three
properties
in
that
year
from
which
he
derived
profits
in
the
respective
sums
of
$265,700
on
the
sale
of
an
8.01-acre
parcel,
$15,618
on
the
sale
of
certain
properties
on
McIntosh
Street,
and
$1,385.97
on
the
sale
of
a
house
on
Auburn
Avenue.
While
we
do
not
necessarily
agree
with
the
learned
trial
judge
in
his
finding
that
the
appellant
was
a
trader
in
real
estate
by
reason
of
the
various
transactions
to
which
he
had
been
a
party,
from
time
to
time
over
a
period
of
some
years,
we
are
of
the
opinion
that
he
was
correct
in
holding
that
the
purchase
and
sale
of
the
8.01-acre
parcel,
known
as
Block
C,
Phase
A
of
the
Clayton
Park
Subdivision,
Halifax
County,
Nova
Scotia,
was
an
adventure
in
the
nature
of
trade
and
not
a
Capital
transaction.
In
a
resolution
passed
by
the
shareholders
of
Clayton
Properties
Limited
on
March
4,
1964
it
was
resolved
that
the
company
would,
at
some
unspecified
date,
sell
5
acres
of
land
in
the
Clayton
subdivision
to
the
appellant.
It
is,
in
our
view,
unnecessary
for
us
to
decide
the
precise
legal
effect
of
this
resolution
because,
whatever
its
effect,
it
is
clear
that
the
appellant
did
not
acquire
the
property
or
oblige
himself
to
do
so
before
entering
an
agreement
with
Clayton
Properties
Limited
dated
November
8,
1967
for
the
purchase
from
the
company
of
Block
C
hereinbefore
referred
to.
Block
C
included
the
5-acre
parcel
which
was
the
subject
of
the
March
4,
1964
resolution.
It
is
not
the
date
of
the
resolution
but
of
the
agreement
at
which,
in
our
opinion,
the
appellant’s
intention
must
be
found
for
the
purpose
of
this
appeal.
The
appellant’s
financial
plight
at
that
date
was
such
that
the
learned
trial
judge
could
properly
conclude,
as
he
did
[at
p
762]
that
I
am
thus
satisfied
that
the
plaintiff
[appellant]
had
in
mind
when
he
purchased
Block
“C”
in
November
of
1967,
the
possibility
of
early
resale,
as
an
operating
motivation
for
the
acquisition
and
that,
therefore,
the
transaction
was
not
capital
in
nature
but
an
adventure
in
the
nature
of
trade.
The
appellant
thus
was
properly
assessed
on
the
profit
which
he
derived
from
the
transaction.
In
so
far
as
the
McIntosh
Street
and
Auburn
Avenue
transactions
are
concerned,
while,
as
already
stated,
we
do
not
necessarily
agree
that
they
were
part
of
a
long-established
trading
pattern
as
the
trial
judge
found,
we
are
unable
to
say
that
there
was
no
evidence
upon
which
it
could
have
been
concluded
that
they
were
not
capital
transactions
but
trading
in
nature.
This
appeal
will,
therefore,
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Email this Content