http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/66727/index.do 
Couture v. Canada (February 6, 2014 – 2014 FCA 35) was an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court which dealt with GST payable on sales of lots by the individual appellants:
[2] The appellants purchased land near the Magog River with the intention of building on it a real estate development with various attractions for potential buyers, including a marina, boat launch and “clubhouse”. Unfortunately, for various reasons, their hopes for this land did not come to fruition, and they ended up selling nine lots over the course of the assessment period. On the basis of certain advices that they received, they neither collected nor remitted to the Minister any goods and services tax (GST) on these sales. The assessments at issue include the uncollected GST plus interest and penalties.
[3] The issue, before both this Court and the Tax Court of Canada, is whether the sale of these lots of land constitutes a taxable supply within the meaning of the Act or an exempt supply under Schedule V of the Act.
The Tax Court judge rejected the argument that the appellants gave up their business prior to the sale of the lots:
[9] In the light of the evidence before him, the judge concluded that the appellants were carrying on a real estate development business. He noted all of the efforts made by the appellants to put their lots on the real estate market. Despite the fact that they had ultimately lost all hope of gaining a profit from the sale of the lots, the judge was not persuaded that they were not carrying on a business. He was of the view that a business does not cease to be a business merely because it experiences a rough period. According to the judge:
[translation]
It would be inappropriate for the tax authorities to refuse the deduction of the business losses while taxing the gains just because the business is going through a difficult period and is suffering only losses.
The judge’s reasons, Appeal Book at page 45.
…
[11] The judge also noted that there was no evidence of a change in the use of the lots. There was no reason to believe that the lots, purchased for commercial purposes, had since become intended for personal use. This was a further basis for the judge’s finding that the lots were being used for business purposes.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants’ “elaborate submissions” about double taxation and Revenue Quebec’s refusal to allow their business losses. At the end of the day the Tax Court Judge was entitled on the evidence to make the findings under appeal:
[18] To conclude, the appellants have failed to persuade me that the judge has erred in any way. His findings with respect to the appellants’ commercial activity involving the lots whose sale is at issue are justified by the evidence that was available to him. The arguments raised by the Appellants before this Court have no bearing on these findings. I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.