MacGuigan J.A. (Robertson, McDonald, JJ.A., concurring):
1 We have not been persuaded that Sobier J.T.C.C. made any errors in his consideration of this case.
2 In particular, we agree with the following passage in his reasons for decision (Respondent's Application Record, 92):
It appears that if they had not chosen to incorporate, they would very likely be entitled to the deduction of these expenses. However, the moneys were borrowed not for the purposes of gaining or producing income from property or a business, but for the purpose of advancing to the corporation, without any return on that investment from the corporation. Their return in the future might have been by way of dividends, but that was not the case.
3 That having been said, we regard it as highly unfortunate that the Crown allowed another case involving similarly placed parties on the same facts to be proceeded with separately[FN1: <p><em>Lambrini Photos v. The Queen</em>, decided by Christie A.C.J.C.C. on 15 July 1996, 96-41 (IT)I and 96-776 (IT)I.</p>] on a different issue, and with a conflicting result. That is unfair both to the applicant and to the Court, and leaves a lingering sense of dissatisfaction with the result.
4 Nevertheless, on the facts and issues before us the s. 28 application must be dismissed.