Walsh, J:—This is a motion by plaintiff for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 337(5) of this Court of a judgment rendered on September 20, 1977, dismissing her motion for an order extending the time within which an appeal might be made from the

The Chief Justice (concurred in by MacKay and Kelly, DJJ) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—This is an interlocutory application made in the course of a section 28 application. It is expedient to outline the proceedings preceding the interlocutory

The Associate Chief Justice:—The issue in this appeal is whether the defendant is entitled, under Arctile VIII A of the Canada-United States Reciprocal Tax Convention, to exemption from Canadian income taxation in respect of his income from teaching

Collier, J:—In November of 1955 Harold and Jacob Borinsky, brothers, along with Max Borinsky, Jacob’s son, bought a farm of roughly 154 acres. The purchase price was approximately $175,000. By 1969, about 140 acres remained. In that year the property was

Maguire, DJ:—On the hearing of this appeal, and with the consent of counsel for the Crown, Her Majesty the Queen was substituted as defendant in the place of the Minister of National Revenue.

Dube, J:—The issue to be determined in this case is whether the defendant can set off against the plaintiff’s claim for drawbacks the unrelated indebtedness of Rapid Data Systems & Equipment Limited for income tax and excise tax which arose prior

Addy, J:—The plaintiff is appealing a decision of the Tax Review Board under which the Minister’s assessment was reversed and a claim for expenses by the defendant company in the amount of $128,000 was allowed for the taxation year 1971.

The Chief Justice (concurred in by Pratte and Ryan, JJ) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing, with costs, an appeal against reassessments of the appellant under Part I of the

Walsh, J:—This is a petition to strike paragraphs 2 to 6 inclusive and paragraphs 14 and 16 of plaintiff's statement of claim pursuant to Rule 419 of the Federal Court Rules. The proceedings concern reassessments made on January 14, 1974 of

Urie, J:—This is an appeal from the judgment of the Trial Division ordering the appellant to refund to the respondent the sum of $474,008.59. The respondent cross-appeals from the failure of the trial judge to order (a) the repayment by the