Beaubier T.C.J.:
These appeals pursuant to the Informal Procedure were heard together on common evidence at Kamloops, British Columbia, on October 29, 1998. The Appellant was the only witness.
The Appellant claimed the equivalent-to-spouse deduction in 1995 and 1996. It was disallowed. He appealed. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal for the 1996 taxation year is, for practical purposes, similar to that for 1995. Those paragraphs read:
Rowe D.J.T.C.:
The appellant appealed with respect to his 1990, 1991 and 1992 taxation years. There were a variety of issues involved concerning some rental properties, business activities, and it involved more than one activity.
We commenced to hear evidence in June, specifically on June 25th, and then adjourned to this date to hear further evidence on the point. Progress was made on certain issues at the June sitting and further progress was made today and evidence was heard and documents were presented.
Rip T. C.]. :
James M. Frank appeals from an income tax assessment for 1996 in which the Minister of National Revenue ("Minister") included in his in- come for the year the amount of $1,057 on the basis that such amount was income from employment pursuant to section 3 and subsection 5(1) of the Income Tax Act (“Act”). The appellant claims the sum of $1,057 was not income to him but damages for settlement of a grievance against his em- ployer and is therefore not to be included in his income.
Lamarre Proulx T.C.J.:
These are appeals from reassessments made by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) respecting the appellant’s 1991, 1992 and 1993 taxation years.
Hamlyn T.C.J.:
These appeals are in respect of the Appellant’s 1994 and 1995 taxation years,
The Appellant wears a prosthetic leg due to an amputation of the left leg below the knee. Mr. Ellwood was allowed a disability tax credit in the 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 taxation years.
Rip T.C.J.:
O^Connor T.C.J.:
This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario on December 1, 1998.
The facts are set forth in a Statement of Agreed Facts (“Statement”) which reads as follows:
For the purposes of this appeal the parties agree to the following facts:
Dussault T.C.J.:
This appeal was heard in accordance with the informal procedure. It is an appeal from an assessment under section 160 of the Income Tax Act ("the Act”) the notice of which bears number 08995 and is dated December 15, 1995.
In making this assessment, the Minister of National Revenue (“the Minister”) made the assumptions of fact stated in subparagraphs 3(a) to (o) of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, inter alia. Those subparagraphs read as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
Dussault T.C.J.:
The appellant is challenging an assessment, notice of which was dated April 29, 1997, for tax on income from Canada of non-resident persons (Part XIII) for the 1996 taxation year.
Beaubier T.C.J.:
This Appeal pursuant to the Informal Procedure was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on November 26, 1998. The Appellant was the only witness. He has appealed the disallowance of some deductions relating to his pottery business in Hazlet, Saskatchewan in 1993 and 1994. They are detailed in Schedules 1 and 2 of the Reply of Notice of Appeal.
By item the Court finds:
