The Chief Justice (concurred in by Le Dain, J and Hyde, DJ) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing an appeal from reassessments of the appellant under Part I of the

Heald, J (concurred in by Jackett, CJ and Ryan, J) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing an appeal from the Tax Review Board which in turn had dismissed the appellant’s appeal from

Dube, J:—This is an application by the defendant for an order striking out subparagraphs 9(c) and 9(d) of the statement of claim on the ground that they disclose no cause of action, and striking out Subparagraphs 9(a) and 9(b) and paragraph 10

Cattanach, J:—These are appeals by the plaintiff from its assessments to income tax by the Minister for the plaintiff’s 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 taxation years whereby the Minister included in the plaintiff’s income gains realized by it in those

Walsh, J:—This case concerns the reassessment of plaintiff's taxes for the 1969 year. His appeal from same to the Tax Review Board was dismissed, notification of judgment being sent to him on September 23, 1976. Similar reassessments were made for his

Dube, J:—These are appeals from the assessments for the taxation years 1969, 1970. 1971 and 1972 with reference to amounts received by plaintiff’s spouse from Blacktop Construction Limited for the sale of gravel extracted from her property. The Minister

Urie, J (per curiam) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division whereby the appellant’s appeal from a reassessment for income tax dated October 30, 1973 for the appellant’s 1970 taxation

Mahoney, J:—The plaintiff disputes his assessment for withholding tax in respect of interest earned in Canada and received by the plaintiff’s non-resident client. The client had an interest in land expropriated by the City of Ottawa and, in 1970, by a

Pratte J (concurred in by Ryan and Le Dain, JJ):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division allowing the respondent’s appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board confirming the reassessments made by the Minister of National Revenue

Décary, J [TRANSLATION]:—The question is whether plaintiff, who Is married with four children, was entitled to deduct from his income for 1973 tuition fees of $180 that he paid for his wife, whom he was supporting in full while she was a