The taxpayers received a number of capital distributions from the liquidator of their mother's "succession" (a Quebec estate), but only filed a notice under s. 116(3) respecting the final distribution. The Minister assessed penalties against the taxpayers on the basis that the taxpayer was deemed under para. (d) of the definition in s. 248(1) of disposition to have disposed of taxable Canadian property (an interest in a trust) without filing the required notices under s. 116(3) respecting the previous distributions.
Jorré J. allowed the taxpayer's appeal. A Quebec succession is not a trust. Although s. 104(1) provided that a reference to "trust" or "estate" included an executor or a liquidator of a succession, this merely facilitated a drafting technique to permit the word "trust" or "estate" to refer both to a trust or estate, and the persons charged with responsibility for carrying out the obligations of the trust or estate, as the case may be. In particular, he stated (at paras. 29-30):
What this drafting technique does is avoid the necessity of distinguishing between the trust or estate and the person charged with doing something; one has to read each section referring to "trust or estate" as referring either to the trust or estate or to the person given an obligation in relation to the trust or estate. The technique also avoids the necessity of repeating a series of alternative persons who may be the person who has the obligation.
That is the effect of the attribution of meaning provided for in subsection 248(1): it is not to treat an estate as a trust.