The taxpayer voluntarily surrendered two commercial fishing licences under a government program in exchange for a payment. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the licences were capital property, and hence their disposition gave rise to capital gains, notwithstanding that there was a fishing moratorium in effect at the time of disposition. The licences still were still rights in the hands of the taxpayer, and therefore came within the s. 248(1) definition of "property." Trudel J.A. stated (at para. 35):
As the [Minister] argues, if the lack of conditions attached to the licence were to render it invalid, this licence could not have been issued in April 19, 2000, or during previous years when the moratorium was also in place. Moreover, why pay renewal fees for a licence that will in all likelihood be invalid if not because this licence gives its holder the exclusive right or authority to be part of the core and participate in commercial fishing activities? Both the legislative enactments and the evidence show that the fact that the respondent did not receive the conditions attached to the licence presented no obstacle to his holding a "bundle of rights" that he could have exercised once he received those conditions.