Cardin,
TCJ:—On
the
25th
day
of
June,
1984,
the
Court
heard
the
following
motion
made
by
counsel
for
the
respondent:
TAKE
NOTICE
that
an
application
will
be
made
on
behalf
of
the
Respondent
before
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
on
Monday,
the
25th
day
of
June,
1984,
at
the
hour
of
2:00
o’clock
in
the
afternoon
or
so
soon
thereafter
as
the
motion
can
be
heard
for
an
order
allowing
the
appeal
and
referring
the
assessment
back
to
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
for
reconsideration
and
reasessment
on
the
basis
of
the
settlement
reached
by
the
parties.
AND
TAKE
NOTICE
that
in
support
of
such
application
will
be
read
the
affidavit
of
Harry
Erlichman
and
the
exhibits
therein
referred
to,
together
with
such
further
and
other
material
as
counsel
may
advise
and
this
Honourable
Court
may
permit.
DATED
at
TORONTO,
this
20th
day
of
June,
A.D.,
1984.
R.
Tassé,
Deputy
Attorney
General
of
Canada,
Solicitor
for
the
Respondent.
PER:
|
M
Judith
Sheppard
|
|
M
Judith
Sheppard
|
The
respondent’s
motion
was
supported
by
an
affidavit
of
Mr
Harry
Erlichman,
counsel
who
had
acted
on
behalf
of
the
Minister
in
this
matter
(affidavit
attached
as
Annex
“A”).
The
Court
is
asked
to
issue
an
order
enforcing
the
terms
of
a
settlement
agreement
which
the
Minister
alleges
was
reached
by
the
parties
but
which
the
appellant
or
its
agent
are
now
unwilling
to
sign
(Exhibit
E
of
the
attached
affidavit).
The
notice
of
appeal,
to
which
the
motion
refers,
is
with
respect
to
the
appellant’s
1974,
1975
and
1976
taxation
years,
dated
August
29,
1980.
The
Minister’s
reply
to
the
notice
of
appeal
is
dated
March
19,
1981.
The
appeal
was
called
for
hearing
on
February
18,
1982
but
was
adjourned
at
the
request
of
the
parties
pending
settlement.
The
pertinent
correspondence
appears
as
Exhibits
B
and
C,
referred
to
in
the
affidavit
of
Mr
Erlichman
(Annex
“A”).
(Exhibit
B)
|
|
TAX
REVIEW
BOARD
|
OTTAWA,
ONTARIO
|
|
KIA
0M1
|
June
3,
|
1982
|
|
Mr.
H
Erlichman
|
|
Department
of
Justice
|
|
PO
Box
57
|
|
Toronto
Dominion
Centre
|
|
Toronto,
Ontario
|
|
MSK
1E7
|
|
Dear
Sir:
|
|
RE:
|
LUISE
SALLER,
#80-1143
|
|
|
HANS
SALLER,
#80-1142
|
|
|
SALCO
CONSTRUCTION
LTD,
#80-1255
|
VS:
|
MNR
|
|
At
the
general
sittings
of
the
Board
held
at
Toronto,
Ontario
on
February
18,
1982,
the
present
appeal
was
called
for
hearing.
At
your
request,
the
hearing
of
this
appeal
was
adjourned
pending
settlement
negotiations
between
the
parties.
Please
advise
as
to
the
parties’
position
regarding
the
above.
Should
this
appeal
be
put
back
on
a
list
for
hearing?
Yours
truly,
Michael
L
Artelle
A/Registrar
cc
L
V
Hack
(Exhibit
C)
DEPARTMENT
OF
JUSTICE
CANADA
PO
Box
57
Toronto
Dominion
Centre
Toronto,
Ontario
MSK
1E7
June
11,
1982
Dear
Sir:
Re:
HANS
&
LUISE
SALLER
v
MNR,
and
SALCO
CONSTRUCTION
LTD
v
MNR
Our
Files:
TO
105758,
106352
&
106987
We
are
close
to
resolving
these
matters
and
I
would
therefore
request
that
the
appeals
not
be
put
back
on
the
hearing
list
at
the
present
time.
Yours
truly,
H
E
Erlichman
Counsel
Tax
Litigation
Toronto
Regional
Office
yw
The
Registrar
Tax
Review
Board
381
Kent
Street
OTTAWA,
Ontario
KIA
0M1
cc
Messrs
Hack
&
Shephard
Chartered
Accountants
Suite
302
3232
Bloor
St
W
Toronto
M8X
1E5
Attention:
Mr
L
V
Hack
In
a
letter
to
Mr
Hack,
CA,
the
appellant’s
accountant,
dated
May
13,
1982,
Mr
Erlichman
set
out
in
considerable
detail,
the
respondent’s
proposition
for
the
settlement
of
the
issues
(Exhibit
A
of
the
Affidavit):
DEPARTMENT
OF
JUSTICE
CANADA
PO
Box
57
Toronto
Dominion
Centre
Toronto,
Ontario
MSK
1E7
May
13,
1982.
ATTENTION:
Mr
L
V
Hack
Dear
Sir:
RE:
|
HANS
&
LUISE
SALLER
v
MNR,
and
|
|
SALCO
CONSTRUCTION
LTD,
v
MNR,
|
|
Our
Files:
TO-105758;
TO-106352;
|
|
and
TO-106987.
|
Our
position
with
respect
to
the
resolution
of
these
appeals
is
as
follows:
1.
With
reference
to
the
schedule
of
items
claimed
to
be
expenditures
of
Salco
Construction
Limited
and
treated
as
advances
to
Salco
Eastern
Limited
in
the
amount
of
$58,334.14:
a)
To
remain
as
advances
to
Salco
Eastern:
April
1975
—
Lalka
re
incorporation
costs
|
$
|
700.00
|
Jan.
1976
—
Colbourne
Printing
—
re
|
|
|
“Eastern”
letterheads
|
|
100.00
|
June
1976
—
Truckers
—
equipment
rental
|
14,385.28
|
b)
|
To
be
treated
as
Capital
Assets
of
|
|
Salco
Construction
Limited:
|
|
|
February
1975
—
Cathman
Wells
Drilling
|
$
1,000.00
|
November
1975
—
HVS
Steel
|
|
132.00
|
May
1975
—
Hogards
|
|
537.00
|
June
1975
—
Nadalen
|
|
1,356.07
|
September
1975
—
General
Supply
|
13,316.00
|
Messrs
Hack
&
Shephard,
|
|
Chartered
Accountants,
|
|
Suite
302,
|
|
|
3232
Bloor
Street
West,
|
|
|
M8X
1E5
|
|
L
V
Hack
|
|
May
13,
1982
|
c)
The
remainder
of
$26,807.79
to
be
treated
as
expenses
of
Salco
Construction
Limited.
2.
The
second
schedule
encompasses
capital
expenses
charged
personally
to
Hans
and
Luise
Sailer
in
the
amount
of
$31,742.97.
After
the
removal
of
$569.24
re
Winiker
Auctioneer,
the
remaining
$31,173.73
may
be
treated
as
capital
assets
of
Salcon
Construction
Limited
as
per
request.
3.
The
third
schedule
involving
items
in
the
amount
of
$5,674.61
charged
as
personal
expenses
of
Hans
and
Luise
Sailer
may
be
afforded
the
following
treatment;
a)
$317
as
a
capital
asset
of
Salco
Construction
Limited,
and
the
remaining
$5,356.08
as
allowable
expenditures
of
Salco
Construction
Limited.
4.
The
final
schedule,
referred
to
as
“Schedule
‘D’”
totalling
$6,485.74
concerns
items
charged
as
personal
and
requested
to
be
treated
as
corporate
expenses.
These
items
are
to
be
afforded
the
following
treatment:
a)
$
599.20
re
Smith
&
Savery
to
remain
as
personal;
1,074.00
re
Peter
Hoogars
is
a
duplication
which
was
afforded
revised
treatment
via
the
other
schedules;
976.30
re
Cashway
Lumber
is
to
be
allowed
as
a
capital
asset;
735.00
re
Seven-Up
is
to
be
allowed
as
a
capital
asset;
3,101.24
may
be
allowed
as
an
expense.
5.
In
addition,
the
request
to
prorate
the
$15,000.00
per
annum
rent
for
1976
paid
by
Salco
Eastern
Limited
to
Salco
Construction
Limited
to
cover
the
two
months
of
May
and
June
1976,
only
in
the
amount
of
$2,500.00
is
acceptable.
Please
inform
me
if
this
is
satisfactory.
Yours
truly,
H
Erlichman,
Counsel,
Tax
Litigation,
Toronto
Regional
Office.
HE/rs
On
June
14,
1982,
Mr
Hack
wrote
the
following
letter
to
Mr
Erlichman
(Exhibit
D
of
the
Affidavit):
Dear
Mr
Erlichman:
RE:
Luise
Sailer,
Hans
Sailer
and
Sailer
Construction
Ltd.
vs
MNR
This
is
in
reply
to
your
letter
of
May
13
1982
and
also
to
the
letter
from
the
Registrar
of
June
3,
1982.
We
have
reviewed
your
proposed
settlement
with
Mr
Saller
and
with
his
lawyer.
After
some
discussion
we
have
concluded
that
the
corporate
settlement
would
be
acceptable.
Mr
Sailer,
however,
has
suggested
that
his
own
tax
bill
is
more
than
he
can
pay.
He
mentioned
to
us
that
he
may
be
able
to
pay
one
half
of
his
bill.
Please
consider.
Mr
Sailer
(this
includes
his
two
corporations)
is
on
the
verge
of
total
bankruptcy
and
thee
is
very
little
likelihood
that
there
will
be
sufficient
funds
to
cover
his
major
liabilities.
If
you
require
more
information
please
do
not
hesitate
to
contact
us.
Yours
truly,
L
V
Hack,
CA
Upon
receipt
of
the
above
letter,
Mr
Erlichman
drafted
the
minutes
of
settlement
appearing
as
Exhibit
E
of
the
affidavit,
which
Mr
Hack
refused
to
sign
on
behalf
of
the
appellant
company.
At
the
hearing
of
the
motion,
it
was
evidently
felt
that
the
appellant
did
not
owe
the
amount
of
taxes
assessed.
Mr
Hans
Saller
admitted
that
he
had
been
represented
by
Mr
Hack
and
a
lawyer
in
negotiation
with
Mr
Erlichman,
but
claimed
that
Mr
Hack
and
the
lawyer
no
longer
represented
the
company.
He
also
claimed
that
he
could
not
possibly
have
authorized
Mr
Hack
or
his
lawyer
to
agree
to
the
corporate
settlement
suggested
by
the
respondent
because
he
did
not
have
the
money
to
pay
the
taxes.
Neither
Mr
Hack
nor
the
taxpayer’s
lawyer
appeared
at
the
hearing.
There
can
be
no
doubt
as
to
the
accuracy
of
the
contents
of
the
affidavit
and
even
less
as
to
the
legitimacy
of
its
purpose.
The
Court
fully
appreciates
the
difficulty
of
the
situation.
I
accept
that
Mr
Hack
did
represent
the
taxpayer
in
his
negotiation
with
Mr
Erlichman
and
I
am
satisfied
that
the
terms
of
the
settlement
negotiated
by
Mr
Erlichman
and
Mr
Hack
were,
under
the
circumstances,
eminently
fair
for
the
taxpayer.
In
considering
the
respondent’s
motion,
the
only
question
which
gives
me
cause
for
serious
concern
is
the
words
used
by
Mr
Hack
in
his
letter
of
June
14,
1982,
“the
corporate
settlement
would
be
acceptable”;
in
my
opinion
these
words
are
too
equivocal
in
the
present
circumstances
to
be
the
basis
of
an
enforcement
order.
Without
having
had
the
opportunity
of
hearing
the
evidence
of
Mr
Hack
or
the
taxpayer’s
lawyer,
both
of
whom
represented
the
taxpayer
and
considered
the
proposal
made
by
Mr
Erlichman,
it
would,
in
my
opinion,
be
unwise
and
imprudent
for
the
Court
to
enforce
the
terms
of
settlement
without
having
greater
certainty
that
the
agreement
had
been
clearly
and
fully
accepted
by
the
taxpayer
or
his
official
agents.
Miss
Judy
Sheppard,
who
presented
the
respondent’s
motion,
was
good
enough
to
provide
the
Court
with
two
decisions
setting
out
the
general
attitude
of
Canadian
Courts
with
respect
to
the
enforcement
by
summary
motion
of
agreements
of
settlement,
and
the
legal
effect
on
a
client
of
settlement
agreements
concluded
by
an
authorized
lawyer
or
agent.
In
the
decision
of
the
High
Court
of
Justice,
in
Thomson
v
Gough,
17
OR
(2d)
420,
Parker,
J
(re
Headnote),
found
that
the
client
is
bound
by
the
acts
of
his
solicitor
unless
the
client
has
limited
the
solicitor’s
authority
and
the
approving
side
has
knowledge
of
the
limitation.
At
page
425,
Parker
J
stated:
In
this
case
the
judgment
was
issued
and
satisfaction
paid.
That
being
so
the
plaintiff
was
not
entitled
to
have
the
judgment
set
aside
on
the
ground
of
lack
of
authority.
Since
there
was
no
dispute
that
a
retainer
existed,
and
no
dispute
as
to
the
terms
agreed
upon
between
the
solicitors,
the
defendant
is
entitled
to
rely
upon
the
agreement
and
the
consent
order
issued
which
confirmed
it.
In
McKenzie
v
McKenzie,
a
decision
of
the
British
Columbia
Court,
55
DLR
(3d)
p
373,
McFarlane,
J,
at
376
states:
That
view
of
the
matter
seems
to
have
been
adopted
generally
by
the
Canadian
Courts.
Sections
6
and
8
(as
renumbered
by
1973,
c
84,
s
9(d)(i))
fo
the
Laws
Declaratory
Act,
RSBC
1960,
c
213
(formerly
s
2,
cis
(5)
and
(7)),
preserve
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Court
to
direct
a
stay
of
proceedings
in
any
cause
or
matter
pending
before
it
if
it
thinks
fit,
and
empowers
the
Court
to
grant
such
remedies
as
may
resolve
all
matters
in
controversy
and
avoid
multiplicity
of
legal
proceedings.
Section
8
of
the
Laws
Declaratory
Act
reads
as
follows:
8.
The
Court,
in
the
exercise
of
its
jurisdiction
in
any
cause
or
matter
pending
before
it,
has
power
to
grant,
and
shall
grant,
either
absolutely
or
on
such
reasonable
terms
and
conditions
as
to
it
seem
just,
all
such
remedies
whatsoever
as
any
of
the
parties
thereto
may
appear
to
be
entitled
to
in
respect
of
any
and
every
legal
or
equitable
claim
properly
brought
forward
by
them
respectively
in
such
cause
or
matter,
so
that,
as
far
as
possible,
all
matters
so
in
controversy
between
the
said
parties
respectively
may
be
completely
and
finally
determined,
and
all
multiplicity
of
legal
proceedings
concerning
any
of
such
matters
avoided.
Miss
Sheppard
suggested
that
section
133
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
Act,
grants
this
Court
the
powers
set
out
in
section
8
of
the
Laws
Declaratory
Act.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
is
correct
in
stating
that
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
does
have
the
jurisdiction
set
out
in
the
above
section.
However,
in
both
the
above
decisions,
the
essential
condition
to
be
met
before
an
enforcement
order
is
issued,
is
that
there
must
be
no
doubt
that
an
agreement
did
exist
and
that
the
terms
of
the
agreement
have
been
clearly
accepted.
In
McKenzie
v
McKenzie,
(supra),
Judge
MacFarlane
at
378
states:
There
is
no
question
to
be
determined
here
concerning
the
terms
of
settlement
or
regarding
the
validity
or
enforceability
of
the
agreement.
Further
on
page
378,
he
states:
.
.
.
It
is
an
agreement
which
was
reached
after
discovery,
after
time
for
consultation
and
consideration,
and
upon
independent
advice.
In
Thomson
v
Gough,
(supra),
the
plaintiffs
solicitor
and
the
defendant’s
solicitor
had
concluded
a
settlement
which
was
confirmed
by
a
letter.
Subsequently,
the
plaintiff
changed
solicitor
and
a
motion
was
made
to
set
aside
the
order
of
the
Court
on
the
ground
that
dismissing
the
action
without
costs
and
the
settlement
of
the
action,
were
without
the
authority
and
the
instructions
of
the
plaintiff.
Here
again
it
is
clear
that
an
agreement
had
been
entered
into
by
the
solicitors
and
the
terms
of
the
settlement
accepted
by
both
solicitors.
The
issue
in
Thomson
v
Gough
was
whether
the
plaintiffs
first
solicitor
was
authorized
by
his
client
to
enter
into
the
said
agreement.
That
of
course,
is
not
the
issue
in
the
case
at
bar.
The
question
here
is
whether
an
agreement
was
concluded
between
the
appellant
or
his
agent
and
the
respondent’s
solicitor.
In
Lewis
v
Chatham
Gas
Co
(
1918),
42
OLR
102,
referred
to
at
424
in
Thomson
v
Gough,
Middleton,
J,
states
at
103:
If
the
consent
judgment
is
regarded
as
a
judgment,
it
is
final
and
binding,
and
it
is
in
accordance
with
what
was
intended
at
the
time.
There
is
jurisdiction
to
alter
a
judgment
once
entered
only
when
it
does
not
express
the
real
intention
of
the
Court
or
when
it
has
been
obtained
fraudulently.
The
judgment
can
be
attacked
only
upon
grounds
upon
which
a
contract
can
be
attacked.
This
is
emphatically
so
when
the
judgment
is
a
consent
judgment.
The
judgment
then
is
based
upon
the
contract
of
the
parties.
In
my
opinion
the
wording
of
Mr
Hack’s
letter
of
June
14,
1982
was
not
sufficiently
conclusive
to
be
considered
a
binding
contract
between
the
parties.
For
these
reasons,
the
motion
is
dismissed.
Motion
dismissed.
ANNEX
“A”
80-1255
TAX
COURT
OF
CANADA
IN
RE
The
Income
Tax
Act
BETWEEN:
SALCO
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITED,
Appellant,
—
and
—
THE
MINISTER
OF
NATIONAL
REVENUE,
Respondent.
AFFIDAVIT
OF
HARRY
ERLICHMAN
I,
Harry
Erlichman
of
the
City
of
Toronto,
in
the
Municipality
of
Metropolitan
Toronto,
Judicial
District
of
York,
Province
of
Ontario,
MAKE
OATH
AND
SAY
AS
FOLLOWS:
1.
I
have
acted
for
the
Respondent
in
this
appeal
and
have
negotiated
on
his
behalf
and
as
such
have
knowledge
of
this
matter.
2.
By
letter
dated
May
13,
1982
I
wrote
to
Mr
L
V
Hack,
who
was
the
Appellant’s
accountant
and
with
whom
I
had
previously
met
with
concerning
the
settlement
of
this
appeal,
setting
out
the
Respondent’s
position
with
respect
to
the
Appellant’s
appeal.
Now
shown
to
me
and
attached
as
Exhibit
“A”
to
this
my
affidavit
is
a
true
copy
of
the
said
letter
of
May
13,
1982.
3.
By
letter
dated
June
3,
1982
the
Assistant
Registrar
of
the
Tax
Review
Board
wrote,
with
a
copy
to
Mr
Hack,
inquiring
whether
the
appeal
should
be
placed
back
on
the
list
for
hearing
by
the
Tax
Review
Board.
Now
shown
to
me
and
attached
as
Exhibit
“B”
to
this
my
affidavit
is
a
true
copy
of
the
said
letter
of
June
3,
1982.
4.
By
letter
dated
June
11,
1982,
a
copy
of
which
was
sent
to
Mr
Hack,
I
informed
the
Board
that
the
parties
were
close
to
settlement.
Now
shown
to
me
and
attached
as
Exhibit
“C”
to
this
my
affidavit
is
a
true
copy
of
the
said
letter
dated
June
11,
1982.
5.
By
letter
dated
June
14,
1982,
Mr
Hack
wrote
stating
that,
“the
corporate
settlement
would
be
acceptable”.
Now
shown
to
me
and
attached
as
Exhibit
“D”
to
this
my
affidavit
is
a
true
copy
of
the
said
letter
dated
June
14,
1982.
6.
I
prepared
Minutes
of
Settlement
setting
out
the
settlement
reached
but
was
unable
to
have
such
Minutes
executed
either
by
Mr
Hack
or
anyone
else
on
behalf
of
the
Appellant.
7.
On
June
14,
1984,
I
met
with
Mr
H
Saller,
the
President
of
the
Appellant
who
now
represents
the
Appellant
and
provided
him
with
a
copy
of
the
Minutes
of
Settlement
which
set
out
the
settlement
referred
to
in
paragraphs
2
and
5
above.
The
said
Minutes
of
Settlement
are
identical
to
the
Minutes
which
Mr
Hack
did
not
sign
save
for
changes
to
the
name
of
the
Court
and
the
designation
of
the
individual
who
was
to
execute
the
document
and
the
date
and
place
of
execution.
Mr
Sailer
refused
to
sign
the
Minutes
of
Settlement.
Now
shown
to
me
and
attached
as
Exhibit
“E”
is
a
true
copy
of
the
said
Minutes
of
Settlement.
8.
This
Affidavit
is
made
in
support
of
an
application
to
have
this
appeal
allowed
and
to
refer
the
assessment
back
to
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment
on
the
basis
of
the
settlement
set
out
in
the
Minutes
of
Settlement
and
for
no
improper
purpose.
SWORN
BEFORE
ME
at
the
City
of
Toronto
in
the
Municipality
of
Metroplitan
Toronto,
Judicial
District
of
York,
Province
of
Ontario,
this
20th
day
of
June,
1984.
Nancy
Ross
A
commissioner,
etc.
Harry
Erlichman
EXHIBIT
E
80-1255
TAX
COURT
OF
CANADA
IN
RE
The
Income
Tax
Act
BETWEEN:
SALCO
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITED,
Appellant,
—
and
—
THE
MINISTER
OF
NATIONAL
REVENUE,
Respondent.
MINUTES
OF
SETTLEMENT
WHEREAS
the
Appellant
and
the
Respondent
have
reached
a
settlement
with
respect
to
certain
expenses
claimed
by
the
Appellant
in
its
1974,
1975
and
1976
taxation
years,
on
the
following
basis:
a)
with
reference
to
Schedule
1
attached;
i)
the
following
are
to
remain
as
advances
to
Salco
Eastern
Construction
Limited:
April
1975
—
Lalka
re
incorporation
costs
|
$
700.00
|
Jan.
1976
—
Colbourne
Printing
re
“Eastern”
letterhead
|
100.00
|
Jan.
1976
—
Trackers
re
equipment
rental
|
14,385.28;
|
ii)
the
following
to
be
treated
as
capital
assets
of
Salco
Construction
Limited:
February
1975
—
Cathmar
Wells
Drilling
|
$
1,000.00
|
November
1975
—
HVS
Steel
|
132.00
|
May
1975
—
Hogards
|
537.00
|
June
1975
—
Nadalen
|
1,356.07
|
September
1975
—
General
Supply
|
13,316.00;
|
iii)
the
remainder
of
$26,807.79
to
be
treated
as
expenses
of
Salco
Construction
Limited;
b)
with
reference
to
Schedule
2,
attached,
all
amounts
save
$569.24
for
“Winiker
Auctioneer”
shall
be
treated
as
capital
expenditures
of
Salco
Construction
Limited,
being
a
total
of
$31,173.73;
c)
with
reference
to
Schedule
3,
all
amounts
save
$317.81
for
“walnut
panels
and
nails”
which
shall
be
a
capital
expenditure,
shall
be
treated
as
expenses
of
Salco
Construction
Limited;
d)
with
reference
to
Schedule
4,
the
sum
of
$3,101.24
shall
be
allowed
as
expenses
of
Salco
Construction
Limited,
with
$976.30
re
“Cashway
lumber”
and
$735.00
re
“Seven-up”
to
be
treated
as
capital
expenditures;
the
amount
of
$599.20
re
“Smith
Savery”
to
remain
as
personal
and
the
amount
of
$1,074.00
being
a
duplicated
amount;
e)
rental
income
of
$15,000.00
previously
assessed
shall
be
reduced
to
$2,500.00
to
cover
only
the
months
of
May
and
June,
1976.
AND
WHEREAS
the
Appellant
and
Respondent
propose
to
sign
Consents
to
Judgment
for
the
1974,
1975
and
1976
taxation
years
to
give
effect
to
that
settlement.
NOW
THEREFORE
in
consideration
of
the
execution
of
the
Consents
to
Judgment
for
the
1974,
1975
and
1976
taxation
years
the
Appellant
and
the
Respondent
hereby
agree
that
the
Respondent
shall
forthwith
following
judgment
reassess
the
1974,
1975
and
1976
taxation
years
as
set
out
above.
DATED
at
HAMILTON,
this
|
day
of
|
,
AD,
1984.
|
|
Salco
Construction
Limited,
|
|
by
its
President
|
|
Hans
Sailer.
|
DATED
at
HAMILTON,
this
|
day
of
|
,
AD,
1984.
|
Roger
Tassé,
Deputy
Attorney
General
of
Canada,
Solicitor
for
the
Respondent.
PER:
H
Erlichman