Bell T.C.J.:
This is an application under section 167 of the Income Tax Act (“Act”) for an Order extending the time within which an appeal may be instituted.
The Applicant, through his counsel, by letter of June 5, 1998 requested the above extension of time.
Lamarre T.C.J.:
Lamarre Proulx T.C.J. .
This is an appeal from an assessment made by the Minister of National Revenue (“the Minister”) for the 1995 taxation year.
The issue is whether the appellant is entitled to the physical impairment tax credit provided for in section 118.3 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”) because of gluten-sensitive enteropathy, commonly known as celiac disease.
Tardif T.C.J.:
This is an appeal for the 1993 taxation year.
The appellant testified in support of his appeal; he explained that he had guaranteed a $34,000 loan made to Jean-Guy Asselin personally by the Na- tional Bank of Canada on June 12, 1989.
As he knew Jean-Guy Asselin well, the appellant agreed to guarantee it so he could obtain the loan in the aforesaid amount in order to invest in the company 2644-8472 Québec Inc., for which he was working. This was a business which printed documents.
Tremblay T . C.J.:
According to the Notice of Appeal and the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, the question is whether the appellant is correct in maintaining that she is not liable under s. 160 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”) to pay tax in the amount of $20,451.78.
Bonner T.C.J. .
This is an appeal from an assessment of income tax for the Appellant’s 1995 taxation year. The assessment was made on the basis that section 79 of the Income Tax Act (“Act”) required the inclusion in income of $1,343,384 as the deemed proceeds of disposition of a parcel of land in Milton, Ontario.
The Appellant is a land developer. The land in question was acquired in 1990 by 731418 Ontario Inc. (“731418”). It is common ground that 731418 acted at all relevant times as trustee for the Appellant.
Bowman T . C.]. :
This appeal is from reassessment for the 1995 taxation year whereby the Minister of National Revenue disallowed the sum of $12,000 claimed by the appellant as alimony or maintenance paid to his estranged spouse under paragraph 60(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The appellant and his spouse had a history of matrimonial difficulties. They have separated and attempted reconciliation on at least two occasions. They are now in the process of obtaining a divorce.
McArthur T.C.J.:
Bell T.C.J.:
The Applicant made a motion seeking an Order pursuant to subsection 93(3) or 93(4) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (“Rules”) directing the Respondent to make Mr. Donald Frattaroli ("Frat- taroli”), or in the alternative, Mr. Robert L. Coker (“Coker”) available to be examined on behalf of the Respondent at an examination for discovery.
Rule 93(3) and (4) read as follows:
Porter D.J.T.C.:
The Appellant received notices of reassessment dated March 14, 1996 relating to the taxation years 1992 and 1993, with respect to travel expenses she had claimed against her employment income, as a school psychologist with the Calgary Board of Education (“C.B.E.”).
