Heald, J (per curiam):—For the reasons expressed in the case of Ernest Arthur Worry v Her Majesty the Queen [see p 220] this appeal is also dismissed with costs.

Heald, J (per curiam):—The appellant’s only submission before us was that there should be a new trial. In our view, the appellant has failed to establish any basis upon which we would be justified in ordering a new trial. The onus

The Associate Chief Justice:—This is a reference for determination under subsection 17(3) of the Federal Court Act, of a question arising under the Income Tax Act which the parties, pursuant to subsection 173(1) of that Act

The Chief Justice (per curiam) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tria! Division allowing an appeal by the respondent from a decision of the Tax Review Board holding that the appellant was entitled to

Tavender, J:—This is an appeal by the Crown by way of trial de novo from an acquittal of the accused respondent on a charge that the accused:

Medhurst, JDC:—This is an appeal by trial de novo from a conviction bearing date of June 17, 1975, made by His Honour Judge L A Justason on a charge against the appellant under paragraph 239(1)(d) of the Income

Spence, J (orally for the Court):—We are ali of the opinion that there is no error in the reasons of the courts below. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed with costs.

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