Morneau Prothonotary:
This is an application by the plaintiff under rule 470 of the Federal Court Rules (the Rules) for an order that the defendant have custody of and preserve the plaintiffs motor vehicle, which the defendant seized in March 1997 under the Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.), as amended (the Act), until the end of the trial.
Rothstein J.:
UPON MOTION, filed the 29th day of May, 1998, on behalf of the Plaintiff, Dragisa Gajic, for an Order under Rule 51 of the Federal Court Rules:
1. to set aside the ruling of Mr. John Hargrave, Prothonotary, announced May 19 and 20, 1998, dismissing the Plaintiffs Statement of Claim as disclosing no cause of action;
2. to reinstate the claim against both Crowns or one; and
Létourneau J.A.:
This is an appeal from a decision of the judge of the Trial Division dated August 7, 1995, in which he upheld the respondent’s action against an income tax assessment made by the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) for the 1986 taxation year.
MacPherson C.].Q.B.:
Desjardins J.A.:
The appellant has not satisfied us that the Trial Judge made any error which would warrant our intervention.
MacKay J.:
These reasons relate to orders which dispose of motions brought by the parties in two Court files, as follows.
In file T-1143-98, the applicants seek
(i) an order for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review, dated June 4, 1998;
Richard J.:
This is an appeal from the order of the Prothonotary, dated May 12, 1997, dismissing the Appellant’s (Plaintiff) appeal for want of prosecution. The order reads as follows:
The Defendant having established both inordinate delay and the likelihood of serious prejudice and the Plaintiff having failed to show that the delay was excusable, the action is dismissed for want of prosecution. The Defendant not having sought costs, none are awarded.
Décary J.A.:
This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada whereby Bowman J. allowed an appeal with respect to the decision of a taxing officer.
The standard that governs the review of a taxing officer’s discretion in allowing specific items on a taxation has been described as follows by this Court in IBM Canada Ltd. v. Xerox Canada Ltd., (1976), [1977] 1 F.C. 181 at 185 (Fed. C.A.), Urie J.A.:
Simpson, J.:
The Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of an Immigration Officer (the “Officer”) dated January 27, 1998, wherein the Officer decided there were insufficient humanitarian and compassionate (“H & C”) considerations to recommend a favourable decision under Section 114(2) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 (the “Act”). A favourable decision would have entitled the Applicant to apply for immigrant status from within Canada.
Muldoon J. (orally):
