DUMOULIN,
J.:—Mrs.
Gladys
M.
Mainwaring,
a
housewife,
residing
in
the
City
of
Vancouver,
B.C.,
appeals
against
the
assessments
imposed
upon
her
income
by
the
respondent
for
taxation
years
1951
and
1952.
The
material
aspects
of
this
case
are
of
the
simplest.
In
the
course
of
1949,
the
appellant
inherited,
from
an
aunt
in
England,
a
rather
modest
amount
of
some
$2,617.89,
which
she
deposited
at
a
local
branch
(Vancouver)
of
the
Bank
of
Montreal
on
August
27,
1949,
as
appears
on
exhibit
2.
It
so
happened
that
her
husband,
Mr.
W.
C.
Mainwaring,
at
the
time
vice-president
of
British
Columbia
Electric
and
a
prominent
businessman,
had
just
organized,
in
partnership
with
four
or
five
others,
an
oil
and
gas
producing
company,
Britalta
Petroleums
Ltd.,
of
which
he
owned
133,333
shares
obtained
at
a
price
of
^2
cent
per
unit.
If
Mr.
Mainwaring
possessed
extensive
business
experience,
such
was
not
the
case
with
his
wife,
who
had
no
knowledge
whatever
of
financial
transactions,
and
her
evidence
before
the
Court
fully
substantiates
her
assertion
to
this
effect.
Under
the
circumstances
it
surely
appears
a
quite
natural
move
on
appellant’s
part
to
look
to
her
husband
for
proper
advice
concerning
the
intended
investment.
And
it
is
not
unnatural
either
that
Mainwaring
should
recommend
investing
part
of
the
windfall
in
the
budding
enterprise
just
launched
by
himself
and
a
few
associates.
Accordingly,
exhibit
3,
a
$1,000.
cheque,
dated
Nov.
14,
1949,
signed
by
the
appellant
in
favour
of
W.
C.
Mainwaring
completed
her
purchase
of
33,333
shares
of
Common
Stock
in
Brit-
alta
Petroleums
Ltd.,
at
one
half
cent
(14)
per
share,
as
evidenced
on
a
receipt,
exhibit
4,
also
of
November
14,
1949,
with
the
mention
that:
‘‘The
balance
of
the
above
amount
is
to
pay
for
other
stocks
I
have
purchased
for
her’’,
signed:
W.
C.
Mainwaring.
The
outstanding
surplus
of
the
legacy
was
left
in
the
bank.
Two
years
later
to
a
day,
November
13,
1951,
the
common
stock
of
Britalta
Petroleums
had
achieved
a
meteoric
rise
and
would
continue
ascending
to
much
more
fruitful
levels
for
months
to
come.
It
therefore
seems
a
permissible
assumption
to
think
that
appellant
acted
as
most
sane
investors
would
have
done,
possibly
on
her
husband’s
prompting
and
no
blame
attaches,
in
reaping
from
November
13,
1951,
until
December
15,
1952,
the
astounding
yields
accruing
from
her
1949
deal.
Exhibit
A
relates
the
complete
listing
of
those
sales
at
prices
ranging,
per
share,
from
a
minimum
of
$4.10,
to
a
maximum
of
$7.25.
On
the
day
of
the
last
transaction
entered
on
exhibit
A,
Dec.
15,
1952,
Mrs.
Mainwaring
still
retained
a
lot
of
2,233
shares.
The
profit
thus
realized
reached
a
grand
total
of
$170,802.94.
Such
was
the
participation
of
the
appellant
in
the
matter,
that
of
buying
common
shares
in
an
oil
company
just
formed
and
subsequently
reselling
at
a
profit,
a
normal
investment
initially,
a
normal
incentive
as
the
stock
sky-rocketted.
This
lady
testified
convincingly
to
her
ignorance
of
the
company’s
internal
story,
the
many
intricate
dealings
it
underwent
to
obtain
sufficient
financing.
Indeed
the
Court
feels
assured
that
had
she
been
apprised
of
such
details
they
would
have
meant
nothing
due
to
her
utter
unfamiliarity
with
the
methods
or
terms
of
business
technique.
This
set
of
facts,
innocuous
enough,
nevertheless
led
the
respondent
to
re-assess
in
the
sum
of
$40,002.25,
appellant’s
taxable
income
for
1951,
and
in
a
further
amount
of
$131,
584.14
for
taxation
year
1952,
allegedly,
as
stated
in
paragraph
4
of
the
Reply
to
Notice
of
Appeal,
because:
“4.
The
acquisition
by
the
Appellant
of
the
shares
of
Britalta
Petroleums
Limited
and
the
subsequent
sale
of
them
by
the
Appellant
during
the
taxation
years
1951
and
1992
at
a
total
profit
to
the
Appellant
of
$170,802.94
is
income
from
a
business
within
the
meaning
of
the
word
as
defined
in
The
Income
Tax
Act.’’
To
the
recital
above
given
of
each
and
every
feature
of
the
instant
transaction,
I
need
only
say
that
it
offered
none
of
the
characteristics
of
carrying
on
a
business,
something
the
totally
inexperienced
appellant
could
not
have
done
however
earnestly
she
might
have
tried,
and
I
might
also
add
a
reference
to
a
recent
decision:
Irrigation
Industries
Ltd.
v.
M.N.R.,
[1962]
S.C.R.
346
at
347;
[1962]
C.T.C.
215
at
219,
in
which
Martland,
J.,
speaking
for
the
majority
of
the
Supreme
Court,
held
as
follows:
“I
cannot
agree
that
the
question
as
to
whether
or
not
an
isolated
transaction
in
securities
is
to
constitute
an
adventure
in
the
nature
of
trade
can
be
determined
solely
upon
that
basis.
In
my
opinion,
a
person
who
puts
money
into
a
business
enterprise
by
the
purchase
of
the
shares
of
a
company
on
an
isolated,
occasion,
and
not
as
part
of
his
regular
business,
cannot
be
said
to
have
engaged
in
an
adventure
in
the
nature
of
trade
merely
because
the
purpose
was
speculative
in
that,
at
that
time,
he
did
not
intend
to
hold
the
shares
indefinitely,
but
intended,
if
possible,
to
sell
them
at
a
profit
as
soon
as
he
reasonably
could.
I
think
that
there
must
be
clearer
indication
of
trade
than
this
...”?
At
the
hearing,
counsel
for
respondent
moved
that
Mr.
Main-
waring’s
evidence,
in
case
No.
165547
[not
yet
reported],
should
be
considered
in
toto
as
an
inherent
part
of
the
instant
one,
a
rather
unusual
suggestion
properly
objected
to
on
appellant’s
behalf.
I
see
no
grounds
whatever
for
not
rejecting
this
request.
For
the
reasons
preceding
the
appeal
is
allowed
and
the
record
of
the
case
will
be
returned
to
the
Minister
for
consequential
re-assessment.
Appellant
shall
recover
all
costs
after
taxation.
Judgment
accordingly.
Email this Content