Help

Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

Canada v. Fries, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1322

 

Wally Fries                                                                                         Appellant

 

v.

 

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                   Respondent

 

Indexed as:  Canada v. Fries

 

File No.:  21570.

 

1990:  November 1.

 


Present:  Lamer C.J.* and Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin JJ.

 

on appeal from the federal court of appeal

 

                   Income tax ‑‑ Computation of income ‑‑ Appellant receiving from his union strike pay equivalent to his normal net take‑home pay during period he was on strike ‑‑ Whether strike pay to be included in appellant's income ‑‑ Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970‑71‑72, c. 63, s. 3(a).

 

Statutes and Regulations Cited

 

Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970‑71‑72, c. 63, s. 3(a).

 

                   APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, [1989] 3 F.C. 362, 99 N.R. 208, 89 D.T.C. 5240, [1989] 1 C.T.C. 471, affirming a judgment of the Federal Court, Trial Division, [1985] 2 F.C. 378, 85 D.T.C. 5579, [1986] 1 C.T.C. 4, reversing the Tax Review Board's decision (1983), 83 D.T.C. 117, [1983] C.T.C. 2124, that strike pay was not to be included in appellant's income.  Appeal allowed.

 

                   Brian Scherman and James Nugent, for the appellant.

 

                   Ian MacGregor and Max Weder, for the respondent.

 

                   The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

 

                   Lamer C.J. ‑‑ The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Justice Sopinka.

 

                   Sopinka J. ‑‑ We are not satisfied that the payments by way of strike pay in this case come within the definition of "income . . . from a source" within the meaning of s. 3 of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970‑71‑72, c. 63.  In these circumstances the benefit of the doubt must go to the taxpayers.  The appeal is therefore allowed and the decision of the Tax Review Board is restored.  The appellant is to have his costs throughout.

 

                   Judgment accordingly.

 

                   Solicitors for the appellant:  Balfour, Moss, Milliken, Laschuk, Regina.

 

                   Solicitor for the respondent:  John C. Tait, Ottawa.



     *  Chief Justice at the time of judgment.

 

Lexum

For 20 years now, the Lexum site has been the main public source for Supreme Court decisions.


>

 

 

Lexbox allows you to keep track of Supreme Court decisions. Store and share your research + create personalized alerts.

Get started with Lexbox


>

Twitter Notices

Get real-time notices of new Supreme Court decisions via Twitter.

Follow Lexum on Twitter