Walsh, J:—On June 28, 1976 a certificate was produced in this Court pursuant to section 223 of the Income Tax Act establishing that defendant was indebted to plaintiff pursuant to section 24 of the Canada Pension

Smith, DJ:—In this action the plaintiff claims that the reassessment of its income for the taxation year ending December 31, 1970 by which $81,076.25 was added to its income for that year and the confirmation thereof by the Minister of National

Collier, J:—The plaintiffs claim refunds, totalling $39,442.50, of excise or sales tax paid, during 1969 to 1971 inclusive, to the federal Crown. They found their cause of action on subsection 44(2) of the Excise Tax Act, RSC 1970,

Urie, J (per curiam) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing the appellant’s appeal from the respondent’s assessment for income tax for the 1968 taxation year arising out of

Décary, J:—The issue is whether or not the products sold by defendant, being cleaning compounds, solvents and rust and corrosion inhibitors, to the third parties in this case, were sales meeting the requirements of Item 5, Part IX, Schedule III of

Le Dain, J (concurred in by Urie, J):—This is an application under section 28 of the Federal Court Act to review and set aside an order under subsection 231(2) of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72,

The Chief Justice (dissenting):—This is a section 28 application to set aside a decision rendered by an Umpire under section 84 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.

Sweet, DJ:—The plaintiff is a private company incorporated under The Corporations Act, 1953 (Ontario) by letters patent dated Septem- ber 16, 1960. The location of its head office as stated in its letters patent was Toronto,

Décary, J:—This is an appeal from an assessment of income tax for the year 1970. In its fiscal period which ended on June 30, 1970 the plaintiff realized an amount of $6,805 on the grant of an easement for a pipe line over its

Mahoney, J:—The issue is the meaning of the phrase “all reasonable and proper costs’’ as used in subsection 178(2) of the Income Tax Act.* [1] A secondary issue is whether this action was properly classified as