Le Dain, J (concurred in by Pratte and Urie, JJ):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing an application for relief in the nature of prohibition, mandamus, injunction and certiorari on the ground, among others, that
Heald, J:—This is an application by Notice of Motion in which the applicants ask for a writ of prohibition, a writ of mandamus, an injunction and a writ of certiorari against the respondents, the Minister of National Revenue and the Deputy Minister
Hughes, CJNB (per curiam):—This is an appeal by the informant by way of stated case pursuant to the provisions of section 762 of the Criminal Code from the dismissal by a judge of the Provincial Court at
Andrews, J (in Chambers):—This is an appeal pursuant to section 44 of the Succession Duty Act, RSBC 1960, c 372 against a decision of the Minister of Finance made pursuant to section 43 of the Succession Duty
Pratte, J (per curiam) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—The evidence supports the finding made by the trial judge that the respondent, in executing the contracts under which the payments here in question were made, had been mainly motivated by the desire to obtain the services of Gollom and Binder. In those circumstances, we are of opinion that the trial judge did not err in ruling that the deduction of those payments was not prohibited by paragraph 12(1 )(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
Gibson, J (orally):—At issue is the character of the payments (namely whether on capital or on revenue account) of $100,000 paid by the appellant to Parlton Drugs Limited, $2,100 paid by the appellant for the surrender of a lease of premises, and
Cattanach, J:—This is an appeal by Her Majesty the Queen from a decision of the Tax Review Board dated September 12, 1975 with respect to the assessment of the defendant to income tax by the Minister of National Revenue for the defendant’s
Addy, J:—The plaintiff, a United States company, was taxed for the years 1969 to 1972 inclusively under Part III of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148 (hereinafter referred to as the “former Act”) and, subsequently, under Part
The Chief Justice (orally for the Court):—We do not need to hear you Mr Chalmers and Mr Pyrcz. We agree with the reasons for judgment of Gibson, J and accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs.
The Chief Justice (judgment delivered from the Bench) (concurred in by Pratte, J and Hyde, DJ):—Except as hereinafter set out, the circumstances in this appeal do not differ materially from those in The Queen v Rockmore
