In rejecting a submission that the shifting of the burden of proof to the taxpayer to disprove the Minister's assumptions can be prevented through an examination for discovery of the Minister's representatives if that examination reveals the assumption is not to be based on any reasonable grounds, Strayer J.A. stated (at p. 5393):
"It is the logic of the Johnston case and those which follow it that, once an assumption is stated, it is for the taxpayer to prove it wrong through his superior access to information about his personal affairs. The examination for discovery of the Minister's representative may help define and narrow the issues for trial, but it cannot be viewed as preliminary challenge to the reasonableness of the Minister's assumptions which, if successful, will preclude the burden from shifting to the taxpayer."