Bowie T.C.J.:

During the 1994 taxation year the Appellant and his wife took a trip to Europe at the expense of General Motors of Canada Ltd. (GM). The issue in this appeal is whether the value of that trip is, in whole or in part, income from his employment pursuant to sections 5(1) and 6 of The Income Tax Act (the Act).

The Appellant was the only witness at the trial, and his evidence was not challenged by counsel for the Respondent; I accept it in its entirety.

Bonner T.C.J.:

This is an appeal from assessments of income tax for the Appellant’s 1994 and 1995 taxation years. The Appellant and his wife separated in 1991. In October 1991 they entered into a written agreement, the body of which reads as follows:

Mogan T.C.J.:

The taxation years under appeal are 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994. The primary issue is whether the Appellant was resident in Canada during those years. The Appellant claims that he was resident in Canada but the assessments under appeal were issued on the basis that the Appellant was not resident in Canada. The Appellant has elected the informal procedure.

Lamarre 7.C.J.:

This is an appeal brought under the informal procedure in respect of the 1993 taxation year.

The point at issue is whether legal fees amounting to $3,488.18, which the appellant incurred when she made a motion to vary corollary relief in respect of support payments she was receiving from her former spouse, are deductible pursuant to s. 18(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act ("the Act’).

Lamarre T.C.J.:

The appellant is appealing under the informal procedure from an assessment made with respect to the 1995 taxation year.

By means of that assessment the Minister of National Revenue (“the Minister") disallowed the non-refundable tax credit in the amount of $719.61 claimed by the appellant for a mental or physical impairment pursuant to ss. 118.3 and 118.4 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”).

Beaubier T.C.J., (orally): (L54/R3654/T0/BT0) test_marked_paragraph_end (1804) 1.012 0646_8317_8479

These motions pursuant to the General Procedure were heard together at Toronto, Ontario, pursuant to rules 54 and 132 for leave to amend notice of appeal as particularized therein. In essence, each wishes to withdraw an admission that he was a director of 605892 Ontario Inc. (605892) in respect to assessments for liability under various statutes for employee withholdings.

Archambault T.C.J.:

Michel Lanctôt is appealing income tax assessments made by the Minister of National Revenue (“the Minister’) for the 1990 to 1994 taxation years inclusive ("the relevant period’). The issue is whether Mr. Lanctôt’s in- come during the taxation years in question came primarily from a combination of farming and some other source.

Somers D.J.T.C.:

This appeal was heard in St. John’s, Newfoundland, on January 15, 1998, pursuant to the Informal Procedure of this Court concerning the Appellant’s 1994 taxation year.

The issues in this appeal are:

a) whether the Appellant is entitled to a deduction for moving expenses in relation to his trip to British Columbia in 1994;

Beaubier T.C.J. .

This appeal, pursuant to the Informal Procedure, was heard at Calgary, Alberta on February 27, 1998. The Appellant’s wife, Valerie Stoneham, was the only witness. The assumptions in the reply to the Notice of Appeal read,

In so assessing and reassessing the Appellant, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact:

(a) Gary is the Appellant’s son;

(b) Gary’s date of birth is August 6, 1984:

Bowman 17.C.J.:

HIS HONOUR: I will render judgment in the case of Guillemette v. The Queen, 96-3678(IT)G.