Collier,
J.:—This
is
an
appeal
by
the
plaintiff
from
a
reassessment,
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
in
respect
of
the
plaintiff’s
1980
taxation
year.
In
his
1980
tax
return,
the
plaintiff
claimed
a
deduction
of
$8,212.50
as
an
allowance
in
respect
of
the
capital
cost
of
a
mini
motorhome.
The
Minister
would
not
allow
the
deduction,
and
reassessed
accordingly.
The
plaintiff
was
a
probation
officer
with
the
Ontario
Ministry
of
Correctional
Services.
On
November
21,
1980
the
plaintiff
and
his
wife
offered
to
purchase
a
21-foot
Glendale
motorhome
from
a
dealer,
Go
Camping
Limited,
of
Brampton,
Ontario
(“the
dealer”).
The
delivery
date
was
December
20,
1980.
The
price
was
$27,214.
Payments
were
to
commence
January
20,
1981
(the
document
reads
“Jan.
20/80”;
that
has
to
be
an
error).
Financing
was
arranged
through
the
Bank
of
Montreal.
A
conditional
sales
contract
was
entered
into,
on
December
20,
1980,
between
the
dealer
and
the
plaintiff.
The
contract
was
assigned
to
the
bank.
The
plaintiff
intended
to
use
the
motorhome
in
a
business.
The
business
was
the
selling
of
vacation
packages,
with
the
use
of
the
motorhome,
to
European
visitors
to
Canada.
The
dealer
was
to
be
the
plaintiff’s
agent
for
that
purpose.
The
plaintif
took
legal
possession
of
the
vehicle
about
the
time
the
bank
financing
was
completed.
It
was
left
at
the
dealers’
[sic]
premises.
No
management,
or
agency,
contract
was
signed
with
Go
Camping
Limited
in
1980.
Nor
was
the
vehicle
used
by,
or
rented,
to
others
in
1980.
The
plaintiff
said
he,
after
acquiring
it,
personally
“promoted
the
utilization
of
that
vehicle
to
colleagues”.
When
the
plaintiff
purchased
the
motorhome,
he
understood,
from
the
dealer,
there
could
be
tax
advantages
in
respect
of
the
proposed
plan
for
the
vehicle.
The
dealer
held
a
seminar
at
some
time
following
the
offer
to
purchase.
Before
going
to
the
seminar,
the
plaintiff
went
to
Revenue
Canada
in
Toronto
to
ask
about
tax
advantages.
He
testified
he
told
them
he
proposed
to
start
a
commercial
business;
he
would
hire
the
dealer
to
perform,
on
his
behalf,
a
variety
of
services
in
respect
of
the
vehicle.
The
tax
people
he
spoke
with
agreed,
according
to
the
plaintiff,
he
could
claim
capital
cost
allowance;
if
a
loss
was
created,
“that
was
fine
because
I
had
a
business”.
The
plaintiff
conceded,
in
cross-examination,
the
conversation
was
a
general
one.
The
plaintiff
did
not
receive,
in
1980,
any
revenue
attributable
to
the
motorhome.
When
he
asserted
the
capital
cost
allowance
of
$8,212.50,
he
claimed
a
net
business
loss
of
that
amount.
The
Minister’s
ground
for
disallowance
was
as
follows:
The
capital
cost
allowance
of
$8,212.50
for
leasing
property,
claimed
as
a
deduction
from
income
in
1980
does
not
qualify
as
a
deduction
under
paragraph
20(1)(a)
of
the
Act
because
of
the
restriction
in
Regulation
1100(15)
of
the
Act.
Regulations
1100(15)
and
1100(17)
are
relevant.
I
set
them
out:
Leasing
Properties
(15)
Notwithstanding
subsection
(1),
in
no
case
shall
the
aggregate
of
deductions,
each
of
which
is
a
deduction
in
respect
of
property
of
a
prescribed
class
that
is
leasing
property
owned
by
a
taxpayer,
otherwise
allowed
to
the
taxpayer
by
virtue
of
subsection
(1)
in
computing
his
income
for
a
taxation
year,
exceed
the
amount,
if
any,
by
which
(a)
the
aggregate
of
amounts
each
of
which
is
(i)
his
income
for
the
year
from
renting,
leasing,
or
earning
royalties
from,
a
leasing
property
or
a
property
that
would
be
a
leasing
property
but
for
subsection
(18),
(19)
or
(20)
where
such
property
is
owned
by
him,
computed
without
regard
to
paragraph
20(1)(a)
of
the
Act,
or
(ii)
the
income
of
a
partnership
for
the
year
from
renting,
leasing
or
earning
royalties
from,
a
leasing
property
or
a
property
that
would
be
a
leasing
property
but
for
subsection
(18),
(19)
or
(20)
where
such
property
is
owned
by
the
partnership,
to
the
extent
of
the
taxpayer’s
share
of
such
income,
exceeds
(b)
the
aggregate
of
amounts
each
of
which
is
(i)
his
loss
for
the
year
from
renting,
leasing
or
earning
royalties
from,
a
property
referred
to
in
subparagraph
(a)(i),
computed
without
regard
to
paragraph
20(1)(a)
of
the
Act,
or
(ii)
the
loss
of
a
partnership
for
the
year
from
renting,
leasing,
or
earning
royalties
from,
a
property
referred
to
in
subparagraph
(a)(ii),
to
the
extent
of
the
taxpayer’s
share
of
such
loss.
(17)
Subject
to
subsection
(18),
in
this
section
and
section
1101,
“leasing
property”
of
a
taxpayer
or
a
partnership
means
depreciable
property
other
than
(a)
rental
property,
(b)
property
of
Class
31
or
32
in
Schedule
II
and
furniture,
fixtures
or
equipment,
if
any,
located
within
and
ancillary
thereto,
or
(c)
property
referred
to
under
paragraph
(n)
of
Class
12
Schedule
II,
where
such
property
is
owned
by
the
taxpayer
or
the
partnership,
whether
jointly
with
another
person
or
otherwise,
if,
in
the
taxation
year
in
respect
of
which
the
expression
is
being
applied,
the
property
was
used
by
the
taxpayer
or
the
partnership
principally
for
the
purpose
of
gaining
or
producing
gross
revenue
that
is
rent,
royalty
or
leasing
revenue,
but
for
greater
certainty,
does
not
include
a
property
leased
by
the
taxpayer
or
the
partnership
to
a
lessee,
in
the
ordinary
course
of
the
taxpayer’s
or
partnership’s
business
of
selling
goods
or
rendering
services,
under
an
agreement
by
which
the
lessee
undertakes
to
use
the
property
to
carry
on
the
business
of
selling,
or
promoting
the
sale
of,
the
taxpayer’s
or
partnership’s
goods
or
services.
The
plaintiff
submitted
the
motorhome
was
acquired,
in
1980,
for
the
purpose
of
earning
income
from
a
business;
the
capital
cost
allowance
was,
therefore,
properly
claimable.
The
evidence
before
me
does
not,
to
my
mind,
establish
the
plaintiff
was,
as
an
issue
of
fact,
carrying
on
business
in
1980.
He
had
not,
in
1980,
made
any
agreement
or
arrangement
with
the
dealer,
concerning
the
use
of
the
motorhome
for
vacation
packages.
In
the
statement
of
claim
(paragraph
3),
the
plaintiff
alleged
an
agreement,
dated
January
10,
1981,
whereby
..
.
the
Plaintiff
engaged
Go
Camping
Limited
to
provide
management
services
in
connection
with
the
commercial
use
of
the
R.V.
I
agree
with
the
submission
of
the
defendant:
that,
in
1980,
the
evidence
indicates
only
that
the
plaintiff
intended,
perhaps
in
the
ensuing
year,
to
rent
out
the
motorhome,
as
a
business
endeavor.
I
find
the
plaintiff
had
not
yet
established
his
intended
business
in
1980.
But
he
had
acquired
the
motorhome
for
use
in
a
projected
business;
he
intended
then
to
use
it
.
.
for
the
purpose
of
gaining
or
producing
gross
revenue".
I
turn
now
to
the
Regulations
earlier
set
out.
There
was
a
difference
of
view,
between
the
parties,
as
to
whether
Regulation
1100(17)
applied
in
this
case.
Was
the
motorhome,
in
1980,
a
leasing
property?
The
regulation
provides
that
leasing
property
is
“depreciable
property"
owned
by
the
taxpayer,
if
in
the
taxation
year,
the
property
.
.
.
Was
used
by
the
taxpayer.
.
.
principally
for
the
purpose
of
gaining
or
producing
gross
revenue
that
is
rent,
royalty
or
leasing
revenue
.
.
.
The
dispute
centred
on
the
words
“was
used".
The
plaintiff
submitted
the
words
must
be
given
their
ordinary
meaning;
on
the
evidence,
the
motorhome
was
not,
in
fact,
used,
in
1980,
for
the
purpose
of
gaining
or
producing
gross
revenue.
The
defendant
contends
that,
on
the
evidence,
the
plaintiff
intended
to
rent
out
the
motorhome
to
others;
even
though
no
rentals
took
place
in
1980,
it
was
used
within
the
meaning
of
the
regulation.
I
disagree.
I
concur
with
the
plaintiff’s
submissions.
The
words
“was
used”
must,
in
my
opinion,
be
given
their
plain
ordinary
meaning.
The
leasing
property
must
have,
in
fact,
been
used.
Hoped
for,
or
intended
use,
is
not
included.
On
the
evidence
here,
I
find
the
motorhome
was
not
used,
in
1980,
as
set
out
in
Regulation
1100(17).
The
limitation,
provided
by
Regulation
1100(15),
is
therefore
not
applicable.
The
assessment
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
is
set
aside.
The
claimed
deduction
is
allowable.
The
plaintiff
is
entitled
to
his
costs.
Appeal
allowed.