Marceau J.A.:

We are all of the view that this appeal, against a decision of the Tax Court of Canada, cannot succeed.

Létourneau J.A.:

This is an appeal against a decision of Mogan J.T.C.C. which raises two issues: the validity of the notice of reassessment sent to the appellant by the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) pursuant to subsection 152(2) of the Income Tax Act (Act) and the impact of an amendment to the Separation Agreement signed by the appellant and his wife in the context of a petition for divorce filed by Ms. Denelzen.

Strayer J.A.:

We are not persuaded that the Tax Court Judge made any reviewable error. The application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed.

Application dismissed.

Barclay J.:

The taxpayers, Horst Franz Jaeckel and Hildegard Jaeckel (the "Jaeck- els”) apply for a review of the jeopardy order obtained by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) on November 20, 1997. The Minister obtained the order pursuant to s. 225.2(2) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) as am. (the “Act”). The order was issued by Matheson J. and provides in part as follows:

Sulyma J.:

The Applicant, Michael Pawlivsky was charged with offences under s. 239 of the Income Tax Act on March 17, 1995. The charges alleged that false statements had been made by him on his tax returns for the taxation years between 1989 and 1994. The prosecution proceeded summarily.

Chevalier D.J.A.:

This appeal is from a judgment rendered in the Tax Court of Canada by Madame Justice Lamarre-Proulx, in which, amongst other conclusions, she found:

a) that the Minister had satisfied the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence, that he was entitled, under subparagraph 152(4)

Linden J:

While the reasons are not as complete and precise as they could be, the Tax Court Judge made neither palpable error of fact nor mistake of law which would allow this Court to interfere.

Isaac C.J.:

We are all of the view that the learned Tax Court Judge did not deny procedural fairness to the appellant or in any other way make any error that would warrant the intervention of this Court. We will therefore dismiss the application for judicial review and affirm the judgment of the Tax Court of Canada.

Appeal dismissed.

Sexton J.A:

Warren J.: