James R. Chalker

The appellant, Hickman Motors Ltd., acquired depreciable property from its subsidiary upon the subsidiary's winding-up.

The appellant held the assets for five days, during which they produced leasing revenue, before transferring them to a newly incorporated subsidiary.

The Minister of National Revenue disallowed the appellant's claim for capital cost allowance (CCA) on the basis that the assets were not acquired for the purpose of producing income.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the assets produced revenue and were therefore acquired for the purpose of producing income.

The Court distinguished the 'purpose of producing income' test for CCA from the 'reasonable expectation of profit' test, finding that the appellant satisfied the requirements of s. 20(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act and the relevant regulations.

The appellant utility company was regulated by the respondent Board.

Prior to and during a hearing regarding the appellant's executive compensation, a board member made strong public statements indicating he felt the compensation was unjustified and should not be borne by ratepayers.

The appellant objected to the member's participation, but the Board proceeded.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the member's statements raised a reasonable apprehension of bias and indicated a closed mind.

The Court concluded that a decision made in circumstances where a reasonable apprehension of bias exists is void ab initio, not merely voidable, as it constitutes a denial of the right to a fair hearing.

The Attorney General of Newfoundland appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of Clause 2(e) of Part I of a statutory lease executed pursuant to the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that both the Trial Division and the Court of Appeal had arrived at the correct construction of the clause, albeit by different routes.