Desjardins
J.A.:
We
are
of
the
view
that
these
appeals
must
fail.
The
appellants
have
not
convinced
us
that
the
agreement
signed
on
November
18,
1980,
by
Albert
Korman
and
M.C.B.
Development
Inc.
is
in
the
nature
of
a
counter-letter
according
to
which
M.C.B.
Development
would
have
acted
as
a
nominee
for
Albert
Korman.
The
terms
of
the
agreement
certainly
do
not
convey
this
interpretation.
But
more
importantly,
the
parties
have
acted
in
a
manner
which
is
inconsistent
with
this
thesis.
We
have
in
mind,
in
particular,
the
fact
that
M.C.B.
Development
Inc.
declared,
in
1989,
a
capital
gain
on
the
resale
of
the
prop-
erty,
and
that
M.C.B.
Development
Inc.
declared
the
full
amount
of
the
interests
paid
to
the
Bank
on
the
$60,000
loan
it
had
assumed.
With
regard
to
the
appellant’s
alternative
argument
that
Albert
Korman
retained
beneficial
ownership
of
the
property,
as
provided
in
subparagraph
54(c)(v)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(“the
Act”),
we
are
of
the
view
that
the
only
right
which
was
retained
by
Albert
Korman
was
a
personal
right
to
use
the
cottage
with
an
option
to
purchase
subject
to
certain
conditions.
These
rights
do
not
come
within
the
terms
of
the
definition
contained
in
subsection
248(3)
of
the
Act.
These
appeals,
therefore,
will
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Copies
of
these
reasons
for
judgment
will
be
filed
in
both
appeals
A-
376-96
and
A-377-96.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content