Before going on to find that it followed from the deeming in subsection 256(9) of control of a corporation to be acquired as of the beginning of the day that control also was relinquished by the previous controller at the same, Noël J.A. stated (at para. 67) that the trial judge had:
"Rightly noted that the presumption in paragraph 69(1)(a) of the Act applies when determining the tax consequences for one of the parties to a transaction (the purchaser), without altering the tax liability of the other (the vendor). However, this asymmetry results from the clear language of paragraph 69(1)(a), which reduces the sale price of the purchaser by deeming it equal to the fair market value of the property sold, and clearly intentionally, lets the vendor suffer the tax consequences resulting from the higher amount actually received ... ."