Cattanach, J:—This is an appeal, on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue, from a decision of the Tax Review Board dated April 9, 1979 whereby, following the defendant’s admission, an amount of $11,700 paid to her by her former husband

Grant, DJ:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from reassessments of its income tax return for the years 1973 and 1974 by the Minister of National Revenue. The plaintiff had sold lands owned by it in March of 1973 by which it had

Smith, C R:—The applicant and plaintiff herein has launched several proceedings in which the same issues arise. In this Court three proceedings have been begun, namely:

Maguire, D J:—Trial of this action came before me at Calgary, Alberta, on September 7, 1980. On conclusion of the trial, counsel for the plaintiff applied for and was granted leave to file a written argument covering the written and oral

Dubé, J:—The plaintiff is a radiologist operating a clinic at Montreal, PQ. During the period of 1967 to 1969 he acquired convertible debentures at a cost in excess of $560,000, the portfolio largely being made up of 4 /2% TWA Convertible

Urie, J:—I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Mr Justice Ryan. While I find them persuasive, after the most careful consideration I have concluded, with regret, that I am unable to agree with them and, consequently, with

Culliton, D J:—This is an appeal from the judgment of Grant, D J dismissing the appellant’s action in which it sought a declaration that it was entitled to deduct capital cost allowance in respect to the buildings on the land at 119-129

Addy, J:—These two appeals, which were heard at the same time on common evidence, involve the taxability during taxation years 1971, 1972 and 1973 of the income of the plaintiff Gurd’s Products Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Products”) and

Gibson, J:—This is an appeal of Supreme Theatres Limited from assessments of tax of its 1972 and 1973 taxation years, notices of which are dated February 9, 1978.

Marceau, J:—In filing his tax return for the 1976 taxation year, relying on sections 3 and 9, on paragraph 18(1 )(a) and on section 111 of the Income Tax Act (SC 1970-71-72, c 63, as amended), the plaintiff claimed a deduction