The Chairman (orally: March 19, 1975):
1 This is an appeal by E John Lechter heard on common evidence with that of his brother Mortimer Lechter, both appealing against reassessments of the Minister of National Revenue for the 1967 and 1969 taxation years. It is a trading case and involves some property in what is now the City of Longueuil, although I understand from the evidence that it had previously been part of the City of Jacques Cartier or adjacent to it. The property is shown on appellants' Exhibit 2. The part that remains unsold is marked “A” and is the part fronting on Roland Therrien Street and, at the time of its purchase in 1955, stretched back to about twice its current depth.
2 By a deed which is in evidence as Exhibit R-1, the property was purchased by Mr Lazarus Bavitch in 1955 for $45,000 and the property contained some 878 subdivided lots. The property had been subdivided into these lots early in the century and the same plan still remains today on the property.
3 The only evidence called was by the appellant E J Lechter, who at the time the property was purchased was some 12 years of age. It is apparent from the evidence that he and his brother Mortimer, who was 17 at the time of the purchase, were being taken care of by their father in some form of an estate planning contract, and there is no doubt whatsoever that the money for the purchase came through him, or through a trust fund created by him for his two sons in which several people, including the co-owners Mr Bavitch and Mr Philip Vineberg were trustees.
4 The property was not utilized for some years, and the evidence from Mr E J Lechter, the appellants' only witness is that no attempts were made to sell it; it was not advertised and there were no signs on the property, because it was being held. One offer was turned down (I think it was in the year 1959), and subsequently, in 1964 or 1965, a parcel of land which is marked “B” on appellants' Exhibit 2 was sold.
5 Subsequently, in 1967 and 1969, the City of Longueuil expropriated several hundred lots, I believe, (or at least over a hundred) and these were located in the parts marked “C” and “D” on appellants' Exhibit 2. The situation now is that the appellants, along with their co-owners are left with the part, as I have said, fronting on Roland Therrien Street and containing 1.5 million square feet.
6 The intention of the purchasers at the time of acquisition as stated in evidence by the appellant John Lechter, was to retain the property and subsequently develop it when the time was right. No plans were prepared for its development, although some discussions were held. There is no question in my mind that the finances were available without difficulty because of the background information I have on the people involved. It has been established, either by inference or by consent, that the appellants' father was a somewhat extensive trader in real estate and achieved a rather substantial degree of success in the real estate trading field.
7 The difficulty that faces me is the fact that the appellants have the onus of demolishing the assumptions of the Minister. It would seem to me that perhaps it is premature to try and determine what is going to happen to the 1.5 million square feet that are still being held. It is also clear that the intention of the parties could not have been known by this witness who was only 12 years old at the time of the purchase of the property and that is the time which is of importance. I think he said that when the property was about to be sold for taxes in 1971, one of his first acts was to pay off the taxes and take over the management, because, at the time, Mr Bavitch, who had been operating the property and who acknowledged in writing that he held the property in trust with persons I have mentioned, was no longer capable of looking after it.
8 Therefore, on his own evidence, John Lechter's direct involvement in this can only be said to have commenced in 1970 or 1971, after a parcel had been sold to other developers who were putting together a land assembly. What they were assembling is not clear, but during this period three shopping centres were put up. However, no use was contemplated by the appellants or their co- owners for this property or the portion that was sold.
9 On the face of it, it would appear that in 1955 this land assembly was so far in the future that it would be facetious to suggest that the original property was purchased because it was land in the path of expanding development. Nevertheless, I am left in the position of not having any concrete evidence to upset the Minister's assessments and, since the appellant E J Lechter, by reason of his extreme youth at the relevant point of time, was unable to give more than what he knew from hearsay, plus evidence of actions taken by him in the 70's, I cannot find that he and his brother have discharged the onus cast upon them by the Act. I feel that this is unfortunate because it seems to me that, if the proper evidence had been available, and I feel certain that if it had been available it would have been presented, to show that these were fortuitous sales, the result might have been different.
10 However, having decided that the evidence that I have heard and the documents that I have seen, are not sufficient to upset the Minister's reassessments, the appeals must be dismissed.
Email this Content