The court found disputed corporate shares were family assets, reapportioned them in the wifeâs favour, ordered compensation and a charge, and awarded special costs.
Division of family assets
Spousal support (retroactive lump sum)
Reapportionment under s.65 fra
Compensation order and charging order under s.66 fra
The court refused to order pre-trial sale of a wine collection, declined to expand a restraining order, and held adultery discovery unnecessary in a separation-based divorce.
The court found that although creditorâproofing was a legitimate objective, the specific step of subscribing for common shares and then effecting a stock dividend to shift value to lowâPUC highâredemption preferred shares, followed by sale of the underâvalued common shares to a family trust, was undertaken primarily to create a tax loss; those transactions lacked economic substance in relation to the purpose of the capital loss provisions and therefore constituted abusive tax avoidance under s.245(4), so the reassessment was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
The series of transactions produced a clear tax benefit by offsetting a recent capital gain with a manufactured capital loss; key steps (value shift by stock dividend, creation of the trust and sale to that trust) were avoidance transactions not undertaken primarily for bona fide nonâtax purposes and, read contextually and purposively, frustrated the object, spirit and purpose of the capital loss and stopâloss provisions; therefore GAAR (s.245) applies and the claimed loss is denied.
The Court of Appeal varied the property division to equalize the farm, upheld the treatment of most inheritance and company assets, and dismissed the maintenance appeal.
Division of family assets
Reapportionment under family relations act ss.56 and 65
The Supreme Court of Canada held that profits from buying and reselling Trust Shares were taxable income because the transactions were part of the respondentâs business, not passive capital gains.