Tanasychuk T. 0.:

This taxation came on for hearing on July 7, 1998, by means of a telephone conference call. It follows a Judgment of the Honourable Judge Tes- key dated February 19, 1997, in which the Respondent was awarded costs on a party and party basis. The Appellant was represented by Mr. Nicholas Ferguson and Ms. Donna Dorosh represented the Respondent.

The Bill of Costs as submitted by the Respondent is as follows:

O'Connor T.CLJ:

This appeal was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on January 20, 1999 pursuant to the Informal Procedure of this Court.

Issue

The issue is whether the Appellant is entitled to deductions from income of losses of $9,068.63 in 1994 and $10,520.39 in 1995 resulting from the operation of an Amway distributorship.

Lamarre T.C.J.:

Hamlyn T.C.J.:

By Notice of Assessment No. 06187 mailed on November 27, 1996, the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) assessed the Appellant for tax in the amount of $49,331.13 pursuant to subsections 160(1) and 160(2) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”).

A Partial Statement of Agreed Facts was filed. It reads:

Lamarre T.C.J.:

Bowie T.C.J.:

Counsel for the Respondent in these two appeals moves, pursuant to Rule 53, for an Order striking out paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Notices of Appeal, on the grounds that they may prejudice or delay the fair hearing of the appeals. The appeals of these two Appellants are begun by identical Notices of Appeal, the last three paragraphs of which read as follows:

Bonner T . C.J.:

The appellant trust appeals from assessments of income tax for the 1993 and 1994 taxation years. In making each assessment, the Minister of Na- tional Revenue disallowed the deduction of $46,000.00 claimed under sub- section 104(6) of the Income Tax Act (“Act”) as an amount which “became payable in the year” to the beneficiaries of the Degrace Family Trust.

marre Proulx T.C.J.:

This appeal concerns scientific research and experimental development expenses ("R&D expenses”) claimed by the Appellant for the taxation year 1994.

The assumptions of fact made by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") in disallowing part of the claimed R&D expenses are described paragraphs I and 3 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal (the “Reply”):

Dussault T.C.J.:

These two cases combine appeals from assessments for the appellant’s 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 taxation years.

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: