McArthur T . C.J.:

The Respondent applies for an order dismissing the Appellant’s appeal on the ground that it does not conform with the requirements of section 169 of the Income Tax Act (Act), in that the Appellant did not serve a Notice of Objection on the Minister of National Revenue.

The Appellant considered letters she wrote to the Regional Office of Revenue Canada and to Active Bailiff Service Limited were a valid Notice of Appeal.

Bowie T.C.J.:

McArthur T.C.J.:

This is an application by Theresia Anne Peach for an order to:

(a) appeal her 1991 and 1992 taxation years; and

(b) file an objection to her 1993 taxation year.

With respect to (a);

• the assessment was mailed July 19, 1995, an objection was filed August 31, 1995 and it was confirmed June 5, 1996.

McArthur T.C.J.:

This is an application by James Hewitt Peach for an order extending the time to:

(a) appeal his 1992 and 1993 taxation years; and

(b) file an objection to his 1995 taxation year.

With respect to (a) taxation years 1992 and 1993;

McArthur T.C.J.:

The Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) disallowed the Appellant’s claim for the 1994 and 1995 taxation years for a deduction of $8,000 and $7,200 as alimony or maintenance and child support with respect to his estranged spouse Barbara Boachie-Yiadom and the sum of $5,380 for the same years in respect of his child Christel born from another union.

Dealing firstly with claim number 1:

McArthur T . C.J.:

The Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) disallowed the Appellant’s claim for non-refundable tax credits in respect of a married amount of $5,380 for the taxation years 1993, 1994 and 1995.

The Minister submits that the Appellant was not a married person who supported his spouse and that he was not entitled to benefits contained in paragraph 1 18(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”).

Tanasychuk B., T.O., T.C.C.:

This taxation came on for hearing on July 9, 1998, by means of a telephone conference call. It follows a Judgment of the Honourable Judge McArthur dated May 1, 1996, in which he allowed the appeals made under the Income Tax Act with respect to the 1990 and 1991 taxation years, with costs. The Appellant represented herself at the hearing and at the taxation. Mr. Sean O’Donnell represented the Respondent.

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

Bowman T.C.J.:

HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal from an assessment for the 1995 taxation year, whereby the Appellant claimed under section 118.9 amounts transferred to him as a supporting person from his daughter. The amounts claimed by Mr. Sandford fall under two sections of the Income Tax Act.

The facts are that his daughter, who was 12 years of age in 1995, attended the Edmonton School of Ballet. The Edmonton School of Ballet provides a combined program of ballet and regular academic courses. It is a full-time program, and it is

Beaubier T.C.J.:

REGISTRAR: Recall file 97-1327 (Income Tax) informed between DESMOND GRANT and Her Majesty the Queen.

HIS HONOUR: This appeal pursuant to the Informed Procedure was held in Calgary on July 22, 1998. The appellant was the only witness. The assumptions in the Reply to the Notice of Appeal read:

6. In so reassessing the Appellant, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact:

O’Connor T.C.J.:

These appeals were heard at St. Catharines, Ontario on September 3, 1998 pursuant to the Informal Procedure of this Court.

The principal facts and issues involved are summarized in the following allegations in the Reply to the Notice of Appeal: