Hill v. MNR, 91 DTC 1094, [1991] 2 CTC 2356 (TCC) -- summary under Capital Loss v. Loss

The taxpayer entered into an agreement with the corporation owned by him and his wife to be paid fees in full consideration for providing guarantees of loans to be made to the corporation by The Royal Bank. However, in the absence of specific evidence that the fees actually paid by the corporation to the taxpayer were consideration for the provision of guarantees rather than for other services, Bonner J. found (at p. 1096) that the "guarantees were not shown to have been given in the course of a business or adventure in the nature of trade involving the provision of guarantees for reward". In addition, in the taxation year in question the taxpayer's quantum of liability under the guarantees was not fixed: negotiations with the bank in this regard were not concluded until four years later.