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
Walsh, J:—This is an appeal against an assessment by defendant whereby the sum of $350,005.50 was added to plaintiff’s income for the taxation year 1965 as a benefit allegedly paid to him under the provisions of the Income Tax
Urie, J (concurred in by Ryan, J):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division in which the respondent’s appeal from the appellant’s income tax assessments for the 1967 and 1968 taxation years was allowed and the assessments were set
The Chief Justice (orally, per curiam):—We do not need to hear you, Mr Matheson. We agree with the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal and this appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.
Collier, J:—In the calculation of his income tax for 1971, the plaintiff sought to deduct from income the sum of $4,000* [1] as alimony payments made to his former wife. The plaintiff contends he is entitled to do so
Mahoney, J:—As a resuit of a consent to judgment filed herein July 25, 1975 there remain three issues to be dealt with in these reasons, namely the issues raised under the headings “Bituminous Sands Leases”, paragraphs 3 to 5 inclusive; “Conjuring
