Collier, J:—The plaintiff company sold, in 1967, a shopping centre in Edmonton, Alberta. The Minister of National Revenue added into taxable income the gain ($41,831.18) on the sale, as a profit from a business or from an adventure in the nature of

Marceau, J:—By its action, the plaintiff herein seeks to obtain that a reassessment of the Minister of National Revenue, wherein a tax in the sum of $13,466.40 was levied on it in respect of income for the taxation year 1970, be vacated.

Addy, J (orally: September 30, 1976):—I don’t intend to file any written reasons, but I wish to deliver my judgment orally. I will therefore request the reporter to keep a note of my remarks and have his notes available for transcription should

Barnett, Prov J:—Donald Brecknock is charged with failing to file his 1974 income tax return following a demand made December 23, 1975 pursuant to subsection 150(2) of the Income Tax Act.

Pratte, J (per curiam) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—We are all of the view that the appeal should succeed.

The Associate Chief Justice:—This is an appeal under the Income Tax Act from a reassessment of income tax for the year 1965. By it the Minister assessed tax in respect of $112,500 as the profit realized by the

Greschuk, DJ:—I agree with the reasons for judgment of the learned Chief Justice with the exception of the excerpts read from the Tax Review Board, the Tax Review Appeal Board, and the judgment of Mr Justice Heald; and that portion of his judgment relating

Sweet, DJ:—This is an appeal from a reassessment by the Minister of National Revenue of the plantiff’s (appellant’s) tax for the taxation year 1964 under the Income Tax Act then in force (the Act).

Bastin, DJ:—This is an appeal from the decision of the Tax Review Board delivered November 28, 1974 allowing the defendant’s appeal from the assessments for the taxation years 1969 and 1970 made on the basis that the defendant corporation was associated with Garyray

Collier, J:—This action and seven others have been consolidated for all purposes. The plaintiffs in each action were, in 1969 and 1970, chartered accountants. They were, at that time, partners in a firm known as Young, Peers, Milner & Co. Subsequently there has