The Chief Justice:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing an action by way of appeal from the re-assessment of the tax payable by the appellant under Part I of the Income Tax Act for the
Pratt J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing the appellant’s appeal from its income tax assessment for the 1974 taxation year and holding in effect that the appellant was not, during that year, involved in the
Mahoney, J:—At the opening of the trial, the parties filed minutes of settlement which disposed of all but one of the issues raised in the pleadings.
Cattanach, J:—This is an application for an order pursuant to Rule 2300 directing that a garnishee show cause at a time and place to be named why a debt alleged to be due by him to a judgment debtor should not be paid to a
Collier, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board. The plaintiff, in 1974, sought to deduct, for income tax purposes, an amount of $984. That sum had been paid by him in respect of daycare expenses for his two
The Chief Justice:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing an action brought by the appellant The Clarkson Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Clarkson”) against Her Majesty for a “duty drawback’’*
Le Dain, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division declaring the respondent companies to be entitled to refunds of sales tax under subsection 44(2) of the Excise Tax Act, RSC 1970, c E-13.
Dubé, J [TRANSLATION]:—At issue is a claim for reimbursement of an amount “of approximately $30,000” paid by plaintiff in sales tax on a substance called “Anti-Skid” used to prevent skidding.
Gibson, J:—These two appeals from assessments for income tax were heard on common evidence.
The Chief Justice:—This is a motion to quash a section 28 application to set aside a stay filed in the Tax Review Board under subsection 239(4) of the Income Tax Act, in April, 1978. That provision read as follows:
