DéCary
J.A.
(Hugessen
and
Létourneau,
JJ.A.,
concurring:—
The
appellant
is
in
reality
asking
the
Court
to
say
that
when
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
gave
its
interpretation
of
subsection
31
(I)
(then
13(1))
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(’’the
Act"),
relating
to
losses
from
farming,
in
Moldowan
v.
The
Queen,
[1978]
1
S.C.R.
480,
[1977]
C.T.C.
310,
77
D.T.C.
5213,
it
did
not
resolve
all
the
problems
that
arise
in
the
application
of
that
subsection.
In
particular,
the
appellant
notes
that
the
subsection
in
question
assumes
at
the
outset
that
there
is
another
source
of
income,
apart
from
farming,
and
that
farming
is
either
the
"chief"
source,
as
it
states,
or
the
secondary
source,
as
intended
by
the
words
"combination
of
farming
and
some
other
source
of
income".
The
appellant
suggests
that
the
Supreme
Court
assumed,
rather
than
decided,
that
farming
had
to
constitute
the
chief
source
of
income
in
all
cases,
and
that
it
did
not
have
to
decide
this
since
the
circumstances
did
not
so
require.
The
appellant
adds
that
the
interpretation
given
by
the
Supreme
Court
makes
the
words
"combination
of
farming
and
some
other
source
of
income"
redundant.
The
interpretation
proposed
by
Mr.
Richard
is
extremely
clever
and
attractive,
but
this
Court
has
itself
on
several
occasions
already
interpreted
Moldowan
in
a
manner
that
does
not
leave
any
room
for
turning
back.
}
Accordingly,
in
the
circumstances,
if
in
fact
there
are
ambiguities
or
areas
left
unexplored
in
the
reasons
of
the
Supreme
Court,
it
is
for
that
Court,
if
it
sees
fit,
rather
than
for
us,
to
resolve
them
or
explore
them.
The
appeal
will
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content