The Canada Trustco decision, 2005 SCC 54, established that under the definition of "series of transactions" in s. 248(10), a transaction can be effected "in contemplation of" a series of transactions even if it occurs after that series of transactions. The taxpayer argued that this finding in Canada Trustco should be overturned because it ran contrary to the plain meaning of "in contemplation of," which the taxpayer alleged is forwards-looking only. Rothstein J. stated (at para. 57):
Trustco is a recent decision of this Court. Reversing a recent decision "is not a step to be lightly undertaken" (Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser, 2011 SCC 20, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 3, at paras. 56-57, per McLachlin C.J. and LeBel J.). Before a Court will entertain reversing a recently decided decision, there must be substantial reasons to believe the precedent was wrongly decided. In this case, Copthorne has not met the "high threshold for reversing a precedent" (Fraser, at para. 60) and it is appropriate to reaffirm the Trustco interpretation of s. 248(10).
The taxpayer's reassessment under s. 245 was upheld.