The taxpayer - which was a member of group of companies that included a producer of exterior trim boards for construction ("W.L.") – earned management fees and rental fees from W.L. In 2003, the taxpayer lent $3.5 million to an arm's length supplier of specially prepared boards ("Interact") secured by patents held by Interact's principal ("Cable").
Following the bankruptcy of Interact and Cable earlier in 2005, the trustee in bankruptcy for Cable released the patents to the taxpayer "subject to ultimate accounting for the proceeds of disposition" - by which the trustee apparently meant to address the unlikely event that the taxpayer could sell the patents for more than the amount it was owed by Interact. Legal title in the patent remained with the trustee.
The taxpayer sold the patents to a corporation owned by the taxpayer's principal's son for $1 in September 2007, and claimed a terminal loss of $3.9 million (based on it having been deemed under s. 79.1 (6) to have acquired them at a cost of $3.5 million plus $0.4 million of relevant legal costs). The trustee (who was not aware of the 2007 transfer) transferred legal title in the patents to the taxpayer in 2010, in exchange for the taxpayer reducing its secured claim by $1 million. The Minister denied the terminal loss - among other reasons, arguing that taxpayer had not become the patents' beneficial owner by the time it sold them in September 2007.
Rip J allowed the taxpayer's appeal. Based on the plain (i.e. dictionary) meaning of the words "beneficial owner, and on the "incidents of title" test in Wardean, he stated (at para. 92):
A beneficial owner of property therefore, is someone who is the real owner of the property, a person who is in possession of the property, a person who could derive income from the property or otherwise use it and who is the person who suffers any loss if the property is damaged or destroyed. The beneficial owner is the only person who can dispose of the property in his or her sole discretion without interference.
The taxpayer had obtained the incidents of title when the trustee released the patents in 2005: the taxpayer possessed the physical patent documents, the trustee confirmed to the patent agent that the taxpayer would henceforth be instructing the patent agent and did not thereafter interfere with the taxpayer's use and enjoyment, the taxpayer assumed the costs of ownership and defended the patent ownership rights against the claims of Cable's common law spouse (who claimed a constructive trust in her favour).