The
Chief
Justice:—It
is
not
necessary
to
call
on
you
Mr
Hynes.
We
are
in
agreement
that
the
appeal
fails.
Where
the
relevant
facts
as
of
the
time
of
the
purchase
are
considered
together
with
the
subsequent
events
and
the
affirmations
of
the
appellant’s
shareholders,
it
is
not
realistic
to
conclude
that
the
only
possibility
that
motivated
the
acquisition
was
the
ultimate
creation
and
retention
of
a
very
substantial
housing
development.
Having
regard
to
the
problems
and
delays
to
be
expected
by
the
appellant
before
it
could
hope
to
commence
the
concrete
steps
of
realization
of
such
a
project,
such
as
the
creation
of
detailed
plans,
the
arrangement
of
permanent
financing
and
the
negotiation
of
contracts,
and
having
regard
to
the
appellant’s
lack
of
financial
resources
of
consequence,
one
cannot
escape
the
conclusion
that,
in
1964,
the
acquisition
was
a
speculation
in
which,
in
addition
to
the
hope
of
an
ultimate
permanent
source
of
income,
the
possibility
of
turning
the
property
to
account
for
profit
in
any
way
which
might
present
itself
as
convenient
or
expedient,
including
resale
of
some
earlier
stage,
was
a
major
motivating
factor.
Compare
Anderson
Logging
Co
v
The
King,
[1925]
SCR
45;
[1917-27]
CTC
198;
52
DTC
1209,
for
Duff,
J,
as
he
then
was,
at
page
49
[201,
1211].
Email this Content