At issue was whether a widow receiving funds from the RRSP of her deceased spouse was a “spouse” for purposes of s. 160(1)(a), so that s. 160 could be applied regarding his tax debt. In similar circumstances, Kiperchuk had briefly found (without the “spouse” issue having been specifically raised) that a widow was not a spouse of her deceased husband, whereas in Kuchta, Graham J, after a thorough analysis of that precise issue, had concluded the opposite.
Russell J indicated that, in light inter alia of the principle of judicial comity, he would follow the same Kuchta approach (notwithstanding that Kuchta might be technically a nullity as it had been decided by a substituted judge – see High-Crest). S 160 applied.