Netolitzky v. The Queen, 2006 DTC 2953, 2006 TCC 172 -- summary under Subsection 50(1)

In finding that the taxpayer was entitled to claim business investment losses in respect of portions of amounts advanced to him by a company run by his wife and also to his an independent company, Sheridan J. stated (at p. 2956) that "the case law is clear that under paragraph 50(1)(a), either all or a portion of the debt may be considered bad" and rejected (at p. 2955) as "an unwarranted expansion of the duty imposed on the taxpayer" a submission of the Crown that the taxpayer ought to have obtained an independent assessment of the amount of the loss and of the company's potential resale value.