Teitelbaum,
J.:—This
is
an
appeal
from
a
judgment
of
Judge
Guy
Tremblay
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
rendered
on
January
30,
1984.
The
judgment
of
Judge
Tremblay
did
not
go
into
the
merit
of
the
opposition
filed
by
the
plaintiff,
in
that,
a
request
for
a
postponement
was
made
by
the
plaintiff
and
which
request
was
refused.
One
of
the
reasons
for
the
refusal
was
that
the
plaintiff
still
had
the
right
to
appeal
to
the
Federal
Court
of
Canada
wherein
the
plaintiff
would
be
granted
a
trial
de
novo.
Plaintiff
filed
an
appeal
from
the
judgment
of
January
30,
1984,
the
said
appeal
was
heard
by
myself
on
January
28
and
29,
1986.
The
facts
can
be
briefly
summarized
as
follows:
plaintiff
purchased
a
parcel
of
land
in
the
City
of
Beloeil,
Province
of
Quebec,
on
the
10th
day
of
April
1969
for
a
sum
of
$20,000.
The
subject
land
may
be
more
fully
described
as:
“Ptie
37
Paroisse
St-Mathieu-de-Beloeil.
Un
emplacement
situé
dans
la
ville
de
Beloeil,
division
d'enregistrement
de
Verchéres,
province
de
Québec,
composé
d'une
partie
non
subdivisée
du
lot
trente-sept
au
plan
et
livre
de
renvoi
officiels
de
la
paroisse
de
St-Mathieu-de-Beloeil
étant,
d'une
façon
générale,
toute
cette
partie
du
lot
trente-sept
contenue
entre
les
bornes
suivantes:
au
nord-ouest
par
le
boulevard
Sir
Wilfrid
Laurier,
au
nord-est
par
une
partie
du
lot
37A,
à
l'arrière
au
sud-est
et
de
l’autre
côté
au
sud-ouest
par
d'autres
parties
du
lot
37.
Cet
emplacement
mesure
120
pi.
dans
chacune
de
ses
lignes
nord-ouest
et
sud-est,
et
a
une
profondeur
de
299
pi.
dans
sa
ligne
nord-est
et
264
pi.
dans
la
ligne
sud-
ouest;
sa
superficie
totale
est
de
32,795
pi.
ca.,
mesures
anglaises.”
The
plaintiff,
having
purchased
the
land
for
a
total
sum
of
$20,000
paid
61¢
per
square
foot
in
1969.
Both
plaintiff
and
defendant
agree
that
the
subject
land
was,
on
December
31,
1971
and
is
today,
situated
in
one
of
the
best
commercial
areas
of
the
City
of
Beloeil.
Plaintiff,
towards
the
end
of
1969
commenced
construction
of
a
professional
building
and
completed
the
construction
sometime
in
1970.
The
subject
land
was
subdivided
into
two
lots
on
November
10,
1972.
When
the
subject
land
was
purchased
by
the
plaintiff
in
1969,
it
was
vacant
land.
The
subject
land
was
sold
by
the
plaintiff
to
Centre
Professionnel
de
Beloeil
Enrg.
on
March
1,
1979
(see
Exhibit
P-3).
Plaintiff,
in
making
the
said
sale
to
Centre
Professionnel
de
Beloeil
Enrg.
declared
that
the
value
of
the
land
on
March
1,
1979
was
$50,000
or
$1.509
per
square
foot
(Page
3
of
Exhibit
P-3).
The
issue
before
this
Court,
on
a
trial
de
novo,
is
to
determine
the
value
of
the
vacant
land
on
December
31,
1971,
valuation
day,
in
order
to
see
if
plaintiff
received
a
capital
gain
when
it
disposed
of
the
land
on
March
1,
1979.
By
letter
dated
February
19,
1982,
forwarded
to
the
Registraire
de
la
Commission
de
Révision
de
l'impôt,
through
the
intermediary
of
its
accountant
Gaétan
Ménard,
c.a.
the
plaintiff
formally
contested
the
final
assessment
of
the
defendant,
in
stating,
and
I
quote:
Nous
avons
évalué
un
terrain
commercial
à
Beloeil,
en
plein
centre
ville
à
$44,500
pour
32,516
pieds
carrés.
Cette
valeur
représente
le
prix
de
base
rajusté
pour
1971,
à
$1.37
le
pied
carré.
On
nous
(should
read
vous)
a
évalué
ce
terrain
pour
fins
de
cotisation
à
$26,240
soit
$0.71
le
pied
carré.
As
I
have
already
stated,
the
appeal
was
heard
in
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
and
was
dismissed.
Plaintiff,
in
attempting
to
convince
this
Court
that
the
defendant
had
erred
in
its
assessment
as
to
the
value
of
the
land
on
December
31,
1971
produced
before
the
Court
an
expert's
report
and
examined
two
witnesses,
Mr.
Gilles
Boilard,
the
expert
and
Mr.
Gaétan
Ménard,
a
shareholder
of
the
plaintiff
and
its
one
time
treasurer.
It
was
admitted
by
the
attorney
representing
the
defendant
that
plaintiff's
witness,
Boilard
was
and
is
an
expert
evaluator
for
immoveable
property
in
the
Province
of
Quebec.
In
the
examination
in
chief,
Mr.
Gilles
Boilard
stated
that
he
was
asked
to
study
the
subject
land
and
to
give
his
expert
opinion
on
the
value
of
the
land
as
of
December
31,
1971.
Mr.
Boilard
stated,
and
I
am
only
referring
to
his
testimony
in
his
examination
in
chief,
that
he
obtained
a
plot
plan
of
the
land
made
in
1969
showing
where
the
subject
land
was
situated
and
the
condition
of
the
land.
Exhibit
P-1
is
the
plan
studied
by
Mr.
Boilard.
Mr.
Boilard
explained
where
the
land
was
situated
in
the
City,
in
the
centre
of
the
city,
and
that
it
was
in
an
area
zoned
“commercial”.
The
witness
goes
on
to
state
that
he
first
saw
the
land
in
1978-79
because
he
worked
in
the
area
but
at
that
time
the
land
had
a
building
on
it.
Mr.
Boilard
expressed
the
opinion
that
the
subject
land
was
situated
in
the
very
best
part
of
the
City
of
Beloeil,
at
the
intersection
of
Ledoux
and
Sir
Wilfrid
Laurier
and
in
the
heart
of
the
commercial
zone.
Mr.
Boilard
then
attempted
to
explain
the
written
report
he
filed
as
Exhibit
P-2.
He
carefully
explained
that
in
order
to
determine
the
value
of
the
subject
land
he
used
the
“technique
de
parité”
(see
Page
6
of
Exhibit
P-2).
I
might
add
that
this
is
the
same
method
used
by
the
expert
for
the
defendant.
The
definition
of
marketable
value
given
by
Mr.
Boilard
can
be
seen
on
page
6
of
his
report,
Exhibit
P-2
and
he
states:
La
valeur
marchande
est
le
prix
le
plus
élevé
estimé
en
termes
monétaires
qu'une
propriété
rapportera
si
elle
est
exposée
en
vente
dans
un
marché
ouvert,
allouant
un
temps
raisonnable
pour
trouver
un
acheteur
et
connaissant
tous
les
usages
auxquels
elle
peut
être
employée.
This
witness
goes
on
to
state
that
using
the
definition
of
marketable
value
in
order
to
determine
the
marketable
value
of
the
subject
land
on
December
31,
1971,
he
had
to
make
a
search
of
the
land
sold
in
the
area.
To
see
the
progression
of
sales,
Mr.
Boilard
stated
he
chose
sales
in
the
area,
all
on
Sir
Wilfrid
Laurier
from
1968
to
1974.
This
witness
in
preparing
his
report
took
into
his
study
of
land
sales,
18
sales
of
which
he
disregarded
nine
because,
in
his
opinion,
these
sales
were
not
comparable
with
the
subject
and.
Mr.
Boilard
stated
in
his
testimony
that
in
order
to
determine
the
increase
in
value
of
plaintiff’s
land
in
particular,
he
considered
sales
1,
4
and
7
of
his
report.
He
stated
he
believed
that
these
sales
should
be
used
as
an
example
for
percentage
increase
which,
according
to
Mr.
Boilard
showed
a
percentage
increase
in
value
of
72
per
cent,
from
50¢
per
square
foot
in
1968
to
$1.46
per
square
foot
in
1970.
I
would
state
that
the
sales
referred
to
as
sales
1,
4
and
7
were
sales
of
the
same
land
or
part
of
the
same
land
on
two
different
occasions.
The
land
is
situated
at
some
distance
from
the
subject
land
and
on
the
opposite
side
of
Boulevard
Sir
Wilfrid
Laurier.
The
witness,
in
testifying
with
regard
to
this
particular
parcel
of
land,
informed
the
Court
that
in
sale
#1
Dominion
Stores
Ltée
sold
vacant
land,
92,922
square
feet
to
Rela
Construction
Co.
Ltée
for
$46,461,
that
is,
50¢
per
square
foot.
As
it
was
shown
to
the
Court
this
sale
was
made
to
Rela
Construction
Co.
Ltée
and
to
Dev.
Laval
Ltée.
Sale
#4
was
a
sale
by
Dev.
Laval
Ltée,
of
its
50
per
cent
ownership,
to
Rela
Construction
Co.
Ltée
on
November
4,
1969
for,
according
to
Mr.
Boilard,
59¢
per
square
foot.
I
would
now
state
that
this
turned
out
to
be
incorrect
and
in
cross-
examination
Mr.
Boilard
admitted
that
the
sale
was
for
73¢
per
square
foot.
It
was
the
first
of
many
errors
made
by
Mr.
Boilard
in
his
testimony
which
led
the
Court
to
question
the
credibility
of
the
total
report
of
this
expert
witness.
The
#7
sale
was
by
Rela
Construction
Co.
Ltée
to
Champlain
Oil
Products
Ltée
on
December
23,
1970
for
$1.46
per
square
foot
but
for
only
32,792
square
feet,
slightly
more
than
one
third
of
the
original
parcel
of
land.
Notwithstanding
the
fact
that
only
a
small
portion
of
the
original
land
was
sold
for
$1.46
per
square
foot
and
notwithstanding
that
the
portion
was
sold
to
an
oil
company
which
may
have
had
the
intention
to
build
a
gas
station,
Mr.
Boilard
believed
that
this
sale
was
excellent
to
use
as
a
comparison
for
determining
the
value
of
subject
land.
The
expert
for
the
defendant
refuted
this
statement
with
literature
showing
clearly
that
gas
companies
usually
pay
more
for
land
and
therefore
this
sale
cannot
be
used
as
a
comparison.
I
agree.
(See
Exhibit
D-10,
pages
953
and
954
Gasoline
Service
Station
Appraisal).
The
witness
for
the
plaintiff
then
gave
us
another
allegedly
excellent
comparison,
sale
#17,
which
is
the
sale,
according
to
this
witness,
of
a
parcel
of
vacant
land
on
August
7,
1974
from
one
Benoit
Beauregard
to
Rafi
Holdings
Ltd.
This
sale
was,
again,
according
to
Mr.
Boilard
in
his
examination
in
chief,
of
28,717
square
feet
of
vacant
land
for
a
total
price
of
$52,000
or
$1.81
per
square
foot.
Mr.
Boilard
stated
to
the
Court
that
this
sale
is
exactly
the
same
as
the
subject
land
and
should
be
used
to
determine
the
true
market
value
of
the
subject
land
notwithstanding
that
the
sale
was
made
in
1974.
He
stated
adjustments
are
made
and
one
can
obtain
true
value
for
December
31,
1971.
Mr.
Boilard,
relying
on
sale
#17
as
an
indication
of
true
market
value
came
to
the
conclusion
that
the
subject
land
had
a
value
of
$1.46
per
square
foot
(Exhibit
P-2,
pages
9
and
10).
The
Court
asked
Mr.
Boilard
if
he
knew
when
Mr.
Beauregard
purchased
the
vacant
land
and
the
reply
was
that
he
was
not
certain
other
than
that
he
was
certain
it
was
before
1968.
He
was
certain
that
it
was
before
1968
because
he
listed,
he
stated,
all
sales
from
1968
to
1974
with
regard
to
all
the
land
sales
mentioned
in
his
report.
This
statement
of
Mr.
Boilard
to
the
Court
turned
out
to
be
incorrect.
In
cross-examination,
Mr.
Boilard
admitted
that
Mr.
Beauregard
purchased
the
property
on
September
4,
1973
from
a
Mme
F.
Desautels
for
$37,000
or
$1.29
per
square
foot
and
that,
at
that
time,
there
was
a
building
and
a
garage
on
the
land.
Once
again,
the
credibility
of
the
witness
was
seriously
put
into
doubt.
Unfortunately
for
this
witness,
there
were
many
other
factors
to
put
the
entire
report
into
doubt.
The
witness
informed
the
Court
that
of
the
18
sales
mentioned
in
his
report
he
did
not
consider
nine
because
they
were
sales
of
land
with
buildings
on
them,
namely,
sales
numbers
8,
10,
11,
13
or
sales
with
special
conditions
or
between
special
bodies,
such
as
public
corporations,
namely,
sale
#2
because
it
was
a
sale
by
the
City
of
Beloeil
by
auction;
sales
12
and
14
because
the
land
required
a
great
deal
of
land
fill;
sale
#15
because
it
was
a
sale
by
the
City
of
Beloeil
to
Travaux
Publics
du
Canada
for
the
construction
of
a
post
office;
and
sale
#16
because
the
price
was
totally
outside
the
real
value,
$4.95
per
square
foot
for
a
special
type
of
fast
food
outlet.
Since
the
witness
rejected
all
sales
with
buildings
on
them,
I
believe
that
sale
#17
should
also
be
rejected.
There
was,
with
this
land,
a
sale
in
1973
with
a
building
and
garage
for
$1.29
per
square
foot.
Mr.
Boilard,
basing
himself
on
his
numbered
sales
1,
3
(subject
land
in
1969)
4,
5,
6,
7,
9,
17
and
18
as
seen
in
his
report
comes
to
the
final
conclusion
that
the
plaintiffs
land
had
a
value
of
$1.50
per
square
foot
on
December
31,
1971.
Unfortunately
for
plaintiff,
I
cannot
agree
with
the
conclusions
of
Mr.
Boilard.
The
cross-examination
of
Mr.
Boilard
was
very
extensive
and
shed
a
great
deal
of
light
on
the
manner
in
which
the
plaintiff’s
expert's
report
was
prepared.
Mr.
Boilard
admitted
that
he
did
not
make
the
search
of
the
sales
mentioned
in
his
report
but
had
one
of
his
employees
do
the
work.
He
also
admitted
that
he
himself
did
not
read
the
deeds
of
sale
but
relied
on
an
employee
in
his
office
to
report
to
him
if
there
were
any
special
conditions
mentioned
in
any
of
the
deeds
of
sale.
Mr.
Boilard
further
admitted
that
this
employee,
Michel
Huot,
was
not
an
expert
in
the
field
of
evaluation
of
immoveable
properties.
In
cross-examination
Mr.
Boilard
admitted
that
the
subject
land
was,
on
December
31,
1971,
not
immediately
across
from
a
shopping
centre
nor
was
the
shopping
centre
built
in
1971.
This
contradicts
what
Mr.
Boilard
stated
on
page
3
of
his
report,
(plaintiff’s
Exhibit
P-2.).
On
page
4
of
the
report,
Exhibit
P-2,
Mr.
Boilard
states
that
the
subject
land
was
subdivided
into
two
lots
on
November
10,
1972
and
that
at
the
present
time
there
is
a
building
constructed
on
the
subject
land.
This
would
lead
one
to
believe
that
the
building
was
built
after
December
31,
1971.
This
was
contradicted
by
plaintiff's
witness,
Ménard,
who
informed
the
Court
that
construction
on
the
building
presently
situated
on
the
land
commenced
at
the
end
of
1969
and
was
completed
in
1970.
It
was
Mr.
Boilard’s
belief
that
it
was
not
generally
correct
to
say
that
a
gas
company
wishing
to
build
a
gas
station
would
pay
more
for
a
particular
parcel
of
land.
This
is
in
direct
contradiction
to
the
testimony
of
defendant's
expert.
Mr.
Boilard
is
also
of
the
opinion
that
the
subject
land
was
ideally
situated
for
a
gas
station
and
was
therefore
comparable
with
sale
#7
in
his
report.
Mr.
Boilard
also
admitted
in
his
cross-examination
that,
in
so
far
as
sale
#18
of
his
report
was
concerned,
there
was
another
error.
After
being
shown
documentation
by
defendant's
attorney,
he
admitted
that
C.D.R.
purchased
the
land
on
July
16,
1974
for
$45,000.
The
Court
must
state
that,
without
going
into
the
whole
of
the
expert's
testimony
and
the
expert's
report
and
because
of
the
serious
omissions,
lack
of
personal
knowlege
of
the
facts
and
having
relied
on
other
persons,
the
plaintiff's
expert
witness
lacked
a
great
deal
of
credibility.
Mr.
Gaétan
Ménard,
plaintiff's
second
witness
testified
that
to
his
personal
knowledge
sales
12
and
14
of
the
plaintiff’s
expert's
report
cannot
be
considered
as
true
value
of
land
because
he
personally
saw
trucks,
over
a
period
of
two
weeks
deliver
earth
to
fill
the
land
which
was
next
to
subject
land,
thus
inferring
a
cheaper
price
for
the
land.
He
admits
having
no
idea
of
how
much
was
spent
to
level
the
land
nor
how
many
trucks
were
required
to
do
the
work.
Mr.
Ménard
did
state
that
he
had
plaintiff's
land
valued
in
1972
for
purposes
of
a
mortgage
that
he
wished
to
obtain
by
a
Eugene
Tellier
and
that
the
land,
on
December
2,
1972,
was
valued
at
$2.50
per
square
foot.
Mr.
Tellier
was
not
present
at
Court
to
be
cross-examined
on
the
method
of
valuation
used
and
thus
I
cannot
give
too
much
value
to
this
evidence.
No
other
proof
was
submitted
to
the
Court
to
prove
the
value
of
plaintiff's
property
on
December
31,
1971.
The
defendant
produced
Mr.
Daniel
Lanouette
as
its
expert
witness.
Plaintiff
admitted
to
the
Court
that
it
accepts
Mr.
Lanouette's
qualifications
as
showing
that
he
is
an
expert
evaluator
in
the
field
of
real
estate.
Mr.
Lanouette
filed
his
written
report
as
Exhibit
D-1
together,
as
did
plaintiffs
expert,
with
a
plan
showing
the
subject
land
in
orange
and
the
land
sales
mentioned
in
the
report
in
yellow.
According
to
the
witness,
his
plan
reflects,
more
or
less,
the
area
as
it
was
in
1971.
Plaintiff’s
plan
does
not
do
this
as
it
shows
plaintiffs
land
as
immediately
across
from
a
large
shopping
centre
which
was
not
yet
built
in
1971.
Mr.
Lanouette
explained
to
the
Court
that
in
all
cases
prepared
for
a
Court
hearing,
he
prepares
two
reports.
The
first
report
“Formulaire”,
was
completed
by
this
witness
on
or
before
October
14,
1980,
in
that
he
met
with
a
representative
of
plaintiff’s,
a
Mr.
Gendron,
to
explain
his
report
in
detail
on
this
date.
Mr.
Lanouette
informed
the
Court,
and
it
was
not
contradicted,
that
this
report
as
to
the
value
of
the
land
was
accepted
by
plaintiffs
representative,
Mr.
Gendron,
who
also
stated
he
would
speak
to
his
associates.
The
report,
“Formulaire,”
was
forwarded,
according
to
Mr.
Lanouette,
to
the
Minister
on
October
15,
1980.
On
December
2,
1980,
a
second
meeting
was
held
with
two
representatives
of
the
Plaintiff,
Gaétan
Ménard
and
Robert
Legault,
who
now
disagreed
with
defendant's
expert's
evaluation
and
no
final
agreement
was
reached.
On
January
16,
1981,
an
offer
was
made
by
defendant
to
settle
the
value
of
plaintiff's
land
on
December
31,
1971
at
80¢
per
square
foot
or
$26,240,
which
was
refused,
although
the
value
of
the
land
by
Mr.
Lanouette
in
his
initial
report
was
only
70¢
per
square
foot.
This
expert
witness
then
explained
how
he
prepared
his
second
or
final
report.
He
stated
he
started
the
report
on
May
17,
1982
and
completed
same
on
July
20,
1982.
He
stated
that
he
did
all
the
research
and/or
other
work
himself
and
he
verified
by
himself
the
land
in
question
and
the
zoning
by-laws
for
December
31,
1971.
The
zoning
was
“Commerce
Local”
that
is,
for
small
business
but
that
the
City
of
Beloeil
would
accept
any
valid
project.
On
November
17,
1976
the
zoning
by-law
was
changed
from
Commerce
Local
to
Commerce
Général
(Exhibit
D-3).
Defendant's
expert
produced
a
number
of
documents
as
Exhibits
to
show
upon
which
authorities
he
relied
in
the
preparation
of
his
report.
Both
experts
used
the
“Parité”
method
in
order
to
arrive
at
the
market
value
of
the
property
on
December
31,
1971.
This
method
uses
land
that
is
identical
or
very
similar
to
the
subject
land
as
an
example
of
true
market
value.
Plaintiff’s
expert
does
not
define
what
he
means
by
the
term
“Parité”
in
his
report.
The
defendant's
expert
states,
on
page
10
of
his
report
(Exhibit
D-1),
that:
Cette
technique
est
reliée
aux
données
directes
du
marché,
c'est-à-dire
aux
ventes
de
terrains
similaires,
et
permet
de
mesurer
par
comparaison
la
valeur
de
l'emplacement
à
évaluer.
On
page
11
of
Exhibit
D-1,
the
witness
lists
the
steps
required
to
be
performed
to
arrive
at
the
market
value
of
a
parcel
of
land
on
a
certain
date.
Defendant's
proof
was
such
that
it
was
shown
to
the
Court
that
the
population
of
the
City
of
Beloeil
between
1970
and
1972
was
stable:
1970,
11,650
inhabitants;
1971,
12,029
inhabitants;and
1972,
12,500
inhabitants,
(P-3,
Exhibit
D-1).
This
would
tend
to
prove
that
there
was
no
special
upsurge
for
land
in
the
area
so
as
to
have
the
land
in
question
increase
150
per
cent
in
value
from
the
date
of
purchase
to
the
valuation
date.
Mr.
Lanouette
then
discussed
each
of
the
sales
mentioned
in
his
report
and
explained
why
he
accepted
certain
sales
and
refused
others.
The
Court
has
before
it
two
reports,
both
made
by
experts
in
the
field
and
both
made
using
the
exact
same
method,
“Parité”.
Both
experts
use
land
sales
in
the
area,
the
plaintiff
using
sales
from
1968
to
1974,
the
defendant
from
1968
to
1972
to
compare
with
plaintiff’s
land
to
arrive
at
a
valuation
for
December
31,
1971.
How
is
the
Court
to
choose
between
the
two
experts.
It
must
be
remembered
that
this
case
is
a
trial
de
novo.
Subsection
175(3)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
states:
An
appeal
instituted
under
this
section
shall
be
deemed
to
be
an
action
in
the
Federal
Court
to
which
the
Federal
Court
Act
and
the
Federal
Court
Rules
applicable
to
an
ordinary
action
apply,
except
as
varied
by
special
rules
made
in
respect
of
such
appeals,
and
except
that
(a)
the
Rules
concerning
joinder
of
parties
and
causes
of
action
do
not
apply
except
to
permit
the
joinder
of
appeals
instituted
under
this
section;
(b)
a
copy
of
a
notice
of
objection
filed
in
the
Registry
of
the
Federal
Court
by
the
Minister
pursuant
to
paragraph
165(3)(b)
shall
be
deemed
to
be
a
statement
of
claim
or
declaration
that
was
filed
in
the
Registry
of
the
Federal
Court
by
the
taxpayer
and
served
by
him
on
the
Minister
on
the
day
on
which
it
was
so
filed
by
the
Minister;
and
(c)
an
originating
document
or
copy
of
a
notice
of
objection
filed
by
the
Minister
in
the
Registry
of
the
Federal
Court
shall
be
served
in
the
manner
provided
in
subsection
(4).
(see
cases
Midwest
Oil
Production
Ltd.
v.
The
Queen,
[1982]
C.T.C.
107;
82
D.T.C.
6092).
This
is
to
say
that
the
plaintiff
has
the
burden
to
prove
its
case.
It,
the
plaintiff,
must
present
sufficiently
satisfactory
evidence
to
convince
the
Court
that
its
evidence
was
more
reliable
and
more
satisfactory
than
that
evidence
produced
by
the
defendant.
It
is
the
Court's
view
that
this
was
not
done.
Furthermore,
the
burden
of
proof
is
on
the
taxpayer
to
prove
that
the
Minister’s
assessment
was
wrong
(Wilfrid
Riendeau
v.
M.N.R.,
[1982]
C.T.C.
2433;
82
D.T.C.
1412
and
Johnston
v.
M.N.R.,
[1948]
C.T.C.
195;
3
D.T.C.
1182).
In
order
to
do
this,
the
taxpayer,
plaintiff
in
this
case,
must
show
that
the
basis
upon
which
the
Minister
came
to
the
value
of
plaintiff’s
land
on
December
31,
1971
was
wrong.
This,
in
my
view,
the
plaintiff
was
unable
to
do.
It
is
also
my
view
that
after
considering
all
of
the
evidence
produced
through
both
experts
and
after
examining
the
Exhibits
filed
by
both
parties
I
am
convinced
that
the
evidence
filed
by
the
defendant
is
conclusive
that
the
value
of
the
land
on
December
31,
1971
was
not
more
than
80¢
per
square
foot
for
a
total
value
of
$26,236.
Plaintiff,
in
its
expert's
report
failed
to
prove
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
Court
what
were
the
market
conditions
on
or
near
valuation
date
but
attempted
to
show
value
of
land
by
using
sales
in
1973
and
1974
without
proving
that
the
conditons
were
the
same
in
1973
or
1974
as
they
were
in
1971.
After
considering
all
of
the
proof
and
examining
all
of
the
Exhibits,
including
the
photographs,
I
must
come
to
the
conclusion
that
the
market
value
of
plaintiff’s
land
on
December
31,
1971
was
80¢
per
square
foot
or
$26,236.
The
appeal
is
thus
allowed
in
part
and
the
matter
is
referred
back
to
the
Minister
on
that
basis.
Appeal
allowed
in
part
without
costs
due
to
the
fact
that
the
defendant
had
been
prepared
to
accept
the
valuation
of
80¢
per
square
foot
before
this
hearing.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content