Fraser, J:—These are appeals under section 34 of The Succession Duty Act, RSO 1960, c 386, as amended [1970, c 51, s 23; now RSO 1970, c 449, s 33], to which I will refer as the Act, from statements of succession duty served on behalf of the Minister of Revenue for Ontario on the appellants.

Pratte, J:—I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of my brother LeDain. While I agree with much of what he says, I do not share his view that the expenditure here in question was properly deductible in the computation of the

Walsh, J:—This action concerns the profit made by plaintiff on the sale of certain land in the City of Ottawa in 1971 which plaintiff Claims is a gain of a capital nature whereas defendant has reassessed same as income pursuant to sections 3, 4 and

The Chief Justice (judgment delivered from the Bench) (concurred in by Pratte, J, and Hyde, DJ):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Review Board allowing an appeal by the

Gibson, J:—This action and five other actions were heard on common evidence.* [1]

Gibson, J:—For the reasons given in the case of Nathaniel C Brewster v Her Majesty The Queen (Court No 331-74) this date, this appeal is allowed and the reassessment is referred back for further reassessment not inconsistent with the reasons.

The plaintiff is entitled to costs.

Pigeon, J (concurred in by Martland, Judson, Dickson, Beetz, JJ):— The facts of this case are stated in the reasons of Spence J which I have had the advaniage of reading.

Walsh, J:—The plaintiff is an investment dealer duly licensed as such by the Quebec Securities Commission. From 1958 to 1959, she was a registered sales representative for the Champion Mutual Fund and from 1959 to 1960 worked in the same capacity for J E

Mahoney, J:—The issue is the disallowance by the plaintiff of deductions of the operating losses of the defendant’s farm from his taxable income for 1967 and 1968, in the amounts of $3,693 and $3,421 respectively. The Minister made no determination under

Addy, J:—The present case was called for trial before me at the same time as the case of The Minister of National Revenue v Murray Kadis, Court No T-1106-72. Both taxpayers are partners with an equal