Canada (The King) v. MICROBJO PROPERTIES INC., 2023 FCA 157 -- summary under Subsection 160(5)

Noël C.J. rejected the taxpayers’ submission (at para. 62) that the introduction of s. 160(5) represented a change from the prior proper interpretation of s. 160(1) that “prior facts taking place when the parties were not at arm’s length should be ignored in determining whether they were in fact dealing at arm’s length at the time of the transfer” and found “that the amendment, as it relates to the precise issue with which we are concerned, can only be read as a measure that confirms the prior state of the law.”