The taxpayer and his wife were the only shareholders of "Hunt River Camps/Air Northland Ltd." (Hunt River), a business from which the taxpayer had retired. The Minister reassessed the taxpayer on the assumption that he had received a $305,000 dividend to match a $305,000 reduction in Hunt River's assets in that taxation year. The taxpayer's explanation, introduced by his accountant who had recorded the reduction, was that a $305,000 investment account on Hunt River's books was found to not actually exist.
The Court of Appeal granted the taxpayer's appeal. Nadon J.A. stated (at para. 32):
The [trial judge] confused the appellant's initial onus to "demolish" the Minister's assumptions by adducing evidence that, prima facie, supported his position with the overall burden resting on the parties to prove that the investment had or had not been paid to the appellant in 2003.