Muldoon J.:

This proceeding is an appeal by the plaintiff from the Associate Senior Prothonotary’s decision striking out the statement of claim, “as disclosing no cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Court and because the plaintiff Harris is not entitled to standing”. (Doc. 24, p. 23, filed January 2, 1998.) The defendants had moved for such a conclusion. The appeal came on for hearing in Winnipeg, on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998.

Per curiam*.

The appeal is allowed with costs throughout for the reasons given by Justice Strayer of the Federal Court of Appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the trial judgment is restored. The constitutional questions are answered as follows:

I. Does s. 231.4 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 as amended restrict rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

The answer is no.

Wetston J.:

Robert E. White appeared, without counsel, as the executor of the estate of his wife, the late Jean White, in respect of the income tax assessment of Jean White’s 1979 taxation year. A Notice of Reassessment dated June 25th, 1986 was sent to the plaintiff and Jean White was reassessed to include in her terminal return of income the deemed dispositions of:

a) 1080 King Street West, Hamilton, generating a capital gain of $9,200.00;

Strayer J.A.:

Strayer J.A.:

These two appeals were heard together on November 19, 1998 in Vancouver.

We have considered carefully the lengthy written and oral submissions of the appellants but are unable to conclude that the learned Tax Court Judge erred in his determination of the issues correctly identified by him as being before that Court.

Décary J.A.:

This appeal turns on the interpretation of the transitional provisions that accompanied the coming into force of the amendment made to subsection 13(21.1) of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”) by subsection 7(3) of the Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to make a related amendment to the Tax Court of Canada Act, S.C. 1985, c. 45. The provision in question is subsection 7(6) (hereinafter “the transitional provision”), which reads as follows:

7....

Hugessen J.A.:

Stone J.A.:

This application for judicial review of a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada was heard together with the application for judicial review in Court file No. A-381-96. A copy of these reasons for judgment will be filed in that Court file and, upon filing, will become reasons for judgment therein.

Marceau J.A.:

The decision under review comes from the Tax Court of Canada. It dismissed appeals that the applicants, husband and wife, had taken in relation to assessments made against each of them by the Minister of National Revenue, pursuant to the /ncome Tax Act, for the 1992 taxation year. In spite of the able argument of counsel, we have not been persuaded that it should be reversed.

Marceau J.A.:

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