The applicant brought a motion for directions to determine whether the respondent was required to seek leave to cross-appeal under Rule 29 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The respondent sought to argue that a currency gain realized by the applicant should be characterized as income rather than a capital gain, an issue decided against the respondent in the courts below.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that because the respondent's argument would not uphold the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the respondent was required to obtain leave to cross-appeal before raising the issue.
