Judgment of the Court
THE CHIEF JUSTICE:-This is an appeal from a judgment of the Exchequer Court' reversing the decision of the Income Tax Appeal Board and restoring the assessment of the appellant to income tax for the year 1952.
Kerwin C.J. and Locke, Cartwright, Fauteux and Abbott JJ. 1[19561 Ex. C.R. 127, [1956] C.T.C. [1956] D.T.C. 1004. 212 T.A.B.C. 183, [19551 D.T.C. 99.
The relevant statutory provisions of The Income Tax Act, 1948, c. 52, are:
Having sold his grocery and meat business in 1948 and being then unoccupied, the appellant entered into an arrangement with a relative to purchase vacant land known as Grandview Park Subdivision, at that time near the city of Sarnia but subsequently incorporated within the limits of that municipality. A consideration of the entire record makes it clear that that arrangement was an adventure or concern in the nature of trade within the meaning of the term "business" as defined in the Act, but the argument is that, because of differences which arose between him and his relative, what he did subsequently was merely an endeavour to realize upon an investment. I agree with Mr. Justice Hyndman that that is not the true conclusion from all the circumstances; nor do I think that it is answered by the reasons of the Income Tax Appeal Board that, in order to escape taxation, the appellant should either have refrained from selling the lots for more than they had cost him, or else should have given them away.
It is quite true that an individual is in a position differing from that of a company and that, as stated by Jessel M.R. in Smith v. Anderson' (approved by this Court in Argue v. Minister of National Revenue'),
However, it is also true, as well in the case of an individual as of a company, that the profits of an isolated venture may be taxed: Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow et al.'.