The taxpayer ran an amusement business in which ponies were harnessed on spokes so that they would move about an axis - essentially a merry-go-round with live animals instead of wooden ones. Bocock J found that s. 31 did not apply, rejecting the Minister's contention the taxpayer was "livestock raising or exhibiting" under the s. 248(1) definition of "farming." He stated (at para. 8):
With respect, 100 years ago such an assertion would have engaged every bakery, dairy, construction company or other business, requiring animal power to "drive" its enterprise, in farming. ... [The taxpayer's] method of "pony propulsion" may be anachronistic and archaic, but factually it is simply that. It is not farming.