In finding that the taxpayer was a specified member of a partnership that had been formed only for the purposes of flowing R & D deductions out to investors and which had no significant activity, Archambault J. noted (at para. 38):
"In my view, it is completely contrary to the intent of the Act to argue that one possible reason for Mr. Rouleau's lack of activity is the fact that the Cablotel partnership was engaged in only a small amount of activity. The reality is that in order to be excluded from the concept of passive specified member, one must show that one has been active, and, if there was no reason to be active, this would constitute a circumstance intended to be caught by the provision."