http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/71436/index.do 
Goldhawk v. The Queen (May 2, 2014 – 2014 TCC 132) involved an assessment against Ms. Goldhawk in respect of a transfer of property to her in 1999 by her husband at a time when he owed approximately $26,000 in income taxes. Ms. Goldhawk argued that the transfer of the house was made pursuant to a marriage contract she and her husband had entered into in 1989.
[3] In 1989, Mr. Goldhawk started a business with Mr. Quattrini who was also a chartered accountant. The business operated as a partnership and provided accounting services.
[4] However, before forming the partnership, Mr. Quattrini insisted that Mr. Goldhawk enter into a marriage contract with his wife whereby in the event of a divorce or a separation, Ms. Goldhawk would not have a right to Mr. Goldhawk’s partnership interest in D.J. Quattrini, C.A. and Quattrini & Associates Limited (the “partnership”).
[5] At the time of the appeal, Ms. Goldhawk and Mr. Goldhawk had been married for 46 years. Prior to 1989, the Goldhawks did not have a marriage contract. Therefore before signing a marriage contract whereby she would relinquish her rights to her spousal interest in the partnership Ms. Goldhawk sought legal advice.
[6] Ms. Goldhawk’s lawyer advised her against signing such a marriage contract, however it was a delicate situation for Ms. Goldhawk; on one hand, she was advised not to sign the marriage contract, on the other hand by not signing the marriage contract she would deny Mr. Goldhawk the opportunity to start his accounting practice.
[7] Ms. Goldhawk and Mr. Goldhawk both testified that they agreed that Ms. Goldhawk would sign the marriage contract relinquishing her rights to Mr. Goldhawk’s partnership’s interests in exchange for the share of Mr. Goldhawk in the matrimonial home. According to their testimonies, this oral agreement was reached shortly before Ms. Goldhawk signed the marriage contract on June 5, 1989. Notably, however, there is no documentation to support the contention that the oral agreement took place, and there is no witnesses confirming their discussion.
However the court was troubled by discrepancies in the documentation:
[19] Ms. Goldhawk could not explain why the deed that transferred to her Mr. Goldhawk’s share in the matrimonial home did not mention the oral agreement. Quite the contrary, in fact, the deed stated the
consideration was “
Natural Love & Affection – and the deed was given to place title in wife’s name alone and for no other purpose. No consideration whatsoever passes between the parties.”
[20] Mr. Goldhawk suggested that it was an error committed by the drafting lawyer. The lawyer acting for the Goldhawks for the house transfer deed was not called as a witness.
[21] In Ms. Goldhawk’s Notice of Objection dated July 18, 2005, there is also no mention of an oral agreement transferring Mr. Goldhawk’s share of the matrimonial home to her. The only ground raised for objecting to section 160 assessment was:
The amount that you claim is owed by AE Goldhawk is incorrect in that payments have been made.
On balance the court found that Ms. Goldhawk had not met the onus of demolishing the Minister’s assumptions:
[26] In my view, the witnesses were given ample opportunity to explain why there was a significant discrepancy between their testimony and the documents, and they did not give acceptable or sufficient responses that could explain why the transfer of the deed did not reflect the oral agreement. Ms. Goldhawk could not offer a single explanation to this effect, and Mr. Goldhawk’s testimony was self-serving, when he claimed that it was an error committed by the drafting lawyer who was not called to testify. In my opinion, Ms. Goldhawk did not demolish the assumptions of fact made by the Minister in this regard; therefore I must accept the nature of the transfer of the deed being as it is presented in the documents, namely, a transfer of Mr. Goldhawk’s share of the matrimonial home without consideration.
As a result the appeal was dismissed with costs.