In finding, in his concurring reasons for judgment, that the contractual right of beneficiaries of an estate to enforce an agreement for the purchase by them of shares of the estate for the shares' par value rather than for the much higher amount that otherwise would have been the shares' fair market value, represented property of the beneficiaries, and therefore should be excluded in the valuation of property of the estate, Pigeon J. stated (at p. 6135) that:
"Parliament cannot have intended that the same value would be included in two separate items of 'property'."