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):

Stone J.A.:

Richard Morneau, Prothonotary:

There are two motions before the Court. One, made by the plaintiff’s present counsel, is for removal from the record. The other motion, made by the defendant under Rule 440 of the Federal Court Rules, is for dismissal of the plaintiffs action.

After hearing counsel for both parties, the Court hereby orders:

Létourneau J.A.:

Despite the able argument of counsel for the appellant, we are not satisfied that Judge Dussault of the Tax Court of Canada committed any error of law in interpreting and applying subs. 160(4) of the Income Tax Act which might justify our intervention. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Teitlebaum J.:

On July 7, 1998, the applicant, Carole L. Barrons, who represents herself, filed into the Federal Court Registry in Toronto, a notice of motion for an order quashing a garnishment issued, as she states in her notice of motion, improperly, on February 27, 1998; or in the alternative, for an order staying the Requirement to Pay dated February 27, 1998 or, in the alternative, "a declaration that the defendant ought reasonably to have acquired the back taxes owing from plaintiff’s RRSP and the Requirement to Pay is therefore stayed”.

Giles A.S.P.:

Before me was a motion inter alia for an order that a question of law be determined. At issue is whether income tax is payable by the plaintiff on income paid to her by an organization based on a certain Indian reservation. The plaintiff is an Indian, but does not live on the reservation on which the unit of which she is a member is based. That reservation is different from the first reservation.