The taxpayer was entitled to the principal residence exemption on the capital gain arising on the sale, under threat of expropriation, to the local municipality of the full 9 acres on which his rural home was situate because subdivision controls would have precluded him from selling to a normal purchaser any portion of the parcel. It was essentially irrelevant that the minimum lot size under the prevailing by-laws at the time of purchase was 3 acres, given that the subdivision controls would have precluded the taxpayer from selling off the excess 6 acres. Robertson J.A. noted (p. 5209) that the term "enjoyment" included not only the exercise of the right of possession, but also included the right of alienation, and that a disposition of the 9 acres was necessary in order for the taxpayer "to exercise his right of alienation or, to trace the language of the Act, to the 'enjoyment' of his residence".
Topics and taglines
Words and phrases
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
338146
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a name=\"Augart\"></a>Augart v. The Queen</em></strong>, 93 DTC 5205 (FCA)",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a name=\"Augart\"></a>Augart v. The Queen</em></strong>, 93 DTC 5205 (FCA)",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}