DUMOULIN,
J.:—At
the
start
of
the
trial
of
Harry
Hortick
v.
M.N.R.,
the
parties
agreed
that
the
evidence
adduced
in
the
latter
case
should
serve
mutatis
mutandis
in
the
present
instance.
I
must
note,
however,
that
the
financial
position
of
the
appellant
completely
differed
from
that
of
Harry
Hortick
whose
relative
impecuniosity
had
led
him
to
borrow
$160,000
for
the
purchase
of
the
B.S.A.
holdings.
Notwithstanding
an
advance
by
the
two
Shafter
brothers
of
91%
of
the
purchase
money,
the
appellant
and
Charles
Shafter
agreed
that
Harry
Hortick
should
be
regarded
as
half-owner
of
the
newly
acquired
property.
Since
the
appellant
was
investing
his
personal
funds,
he
evidently
had
no
external
pressure
to
apprehend
and
would
become
assessable
for
his
share
of
the
gain
realized
on
the
resale
only
if
his
participation
to
this
deal
fell
in
the
category
of
undertakings
foreseen
by
Section
139
(1)(e)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
‘‘an
adventure
or
concern
in
the
nature
of
trade”.
The
Shafter
brothers
at
the
material
time,
December
14,
1956,
operated
two
places
of
business
in
Montreal,
one
on
Dorchester
Boulevard
and
the
other
on
Beaumont
St.
in
the
northern
section.
Their
only
interest
resided
in
the
B.S.A.
lands
and
not
at
all
in
the
buildings,
which
they
readily
would
have
disposed
of
as
evidenced
by
the
prohibitive
rental
of
$3,000
monthly
asked
of
Harry
Hortick.
At
all
events,
the
proven
facts
show
that
Harry
Shafter
was
in
complete
agreement
with
Hortick
in
the
latter’s
attempts
to
sell
their
joint
and
recent
acquisition
to
Peacock
Bros.
Ltd.
The
irresistible
notion
arising
from
the
appellant’s
actions
is
that
his
true
incentive
was
the
obtention
of
a
quick
profit
of
windfall
proportions.
This
motivating
factor
surely
existed
when
Harry
Shafter
consented
to
finance
for
a
share
the
alluring
bargain
outlined
to
him
by
Hortick.
I
am
unable
to
detect
any
appreciable
difference
between
the
issue
at
bar
and
the
analogous
cases
of
Bayridge
Estates
Lid.
v.
M.N.R.,
[1959]
Ex.
C.R.
248;
[1959]
C.T.C.
158,
and
Regal
Heights
Ltd.
v.
M.N.R.,
[1960]
S.C.R.
902;
[1960]
C.T.C.
384,
to
which
I
refer
the
litigants.
In
conclusion,
the
Court
is
of
opinion
that
the
appellant
engaged
into
a
venture
in
the
nature
of
trade,
and
was
therefore
regularly
and
properly
assessed
by
the
respondent
for
his
share
of
the
accruing
gain.
The
appeal
should
be
dismissed
and
the
respondent
entitled
to
recover
his
costs
after
taxation.
Judgment
accordingly.
Email this Content