Décary, J (delivered orally from the Bench in Montreal on April 30, 1976):—In this matter, the issue is to determine whether the Minister of National Revenue was right in considering that the market value of shares by Walter M Lowney Co Limited, hereinafter

Collier, J:—The plaintiff and three companions, in February 1969, purchased in the stock market some speculative shares. In February 1970 the shares were sold. The economic result of the whole diversion was the common one which usually befalls the great majority of

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

Le Dain, J (concurred in by Pratte and Urie, JJ):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division striking out a Statement of Claim and dismissing an action for declaratory relief.

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