Applying the Kane decision, Sheridan J. agreed with the Minister that the taxpayer, having no "particular or specialized knowledge of the market in which he trades", did not qualify as a trader under s. 39(5)(a). The taxpayer had some university education in economics and accounting, but no professional training in shares trading. Sheridan J. stated (at para. 11):
The most that can be taken from the evidence is that his employment duties provided him with some experience in share trading, including exposure to various internet tools that could be used to track the market. But he had no specialized knowledge of the shares traded; as for the internet programs he used, these were available to the general public simply by paying the requisite subscription price.