3 total
Forward contract cash losses treated as capital losses where linkage to hedged shares was sufficient.
The appellant, a former bank executive, entered into a cash-settled forward contract with a securities dealer shortly before accessing a credit facility secured by the same shares underlying the forward contract.
The appellant characterized losses from the forward contract as income losses on the basis that the contract was speculative, while the Minister reassessed and characterized them as capital losses on the basis that the contract was a hedge of capital shares.
The majority held that the characterization of a derivative contract turns on its purpose, ascertained objectively through linkage analysis, and that the forward contract's nearly perfect neutralization of price fluctuations in the underlying shares, considered alongside the loan and pledge agreements, demonstrated the requisite linkage to constitute a hedge.
The dissent would have restored the trial judge's findings of fact, holding that intent — assessed through both subjective statements and objective manifestations — is necessary to find a hedge, and that the credit facility and securities pledge agreement entered into with a separate entity were irrelevant to the characterization of the forward contract.
Appeal dismissed, Côté J. dissenting.
The accused was convicted of firearms offences based on compelling video and forensic evidence.
The accused, Nehemiah S. Campbell, was charged on a seven-count indictment arising from a shooting incident in downtown Ottawa.
The Crown alleged the accused was the individual who returned fire with a 9mm handgun after being shot by occupants of a white sedan.
The court found the accused guilty on five counts: reckless discharge of a firearm, possessing a firearm while prohibited, possessing a loaded prohibited firearm without a license, possession of a prohibited firearm, and breach of recognizance.
The court dismissed charges of unlawfully causing bodily harm and using a firearm while committing that offence, finding the innocent bystander was wounded by the initial shooter, not the accused.
The judgment relied heavily on video surveillance, forensic evidence (blood spatter matching the accused), and the recovery of the 9mm handgun with the accused's blood-stained wallet.
The court rejected the defence's theory as speculative, concluding the circumstantial evidence proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Summary judgment denied where society’s evidence raised triable issues in child protection case.
The applicant children’s aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a Crown wardship order without access in relation to three children.
The respondents opposed the motion, arguing the society’s affidavit evidence contained hearsay, relied on unidentified sources, and improperly incorporated medical opinions based on second-hand information.
The court reviewed the affidavits and medical reports and concluded that significant issues remained regarding admissibility, credibility, and the reliability of conclusions drawn from third‑party information.
The court also noted concerns that the mother’s proposed care plan may have been rejected without sufficient consideration.
The court held that the society had not established that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.
