McArthur J.T.C.C.: — This appeal was heard in Ottawa, Ontario on February 5, 1996 with respect to the Appellant’s 1987 and 1988 taxation years.

Mogan J.T.C.C.: — The appeals of Whent v. R. (July 12, 1996), Docs. 92-423(IT)G, 92-424(IT)G, 92-425(IT)G (T.C.C.) were heard together on common evidence. At all relevant times, the three Appellants were lawyers who practised law

Bowman J.T.C.C.: — The point at issue in these appeals is whether the appellant (“S.F.I.”) was associated with two other companies, that 1s, Dobersol Inc. (“Dobersol”) and Techn-Ecologie Inc. (“T.E.”), within the meaning of paragraph 256(1 )(b) of the

Christie J.T.C.C.: — This appeal is governed by the informal procedure provided for under section 18 and following sections of the Tax Court of Canada Act. The year under appeal is 1991.

Brulé J.T.C.C.: — These two appeals were heard on common evidence and arose after the appellants were reassessed for the 1991 and 1992 taxation years where the Minister of National Revenue disallowed certain deductions from income.

Bowman J.T.C.C.: — These appeals are from assessments for 1991, 1992 and 1993 and involve a claim for the disability tax credit under section 118.3 of the Income Tax Act. No claim for the credit was made for 1991

Taylor J.T.C.C.: — This is the case of Erik Olesen, with respect to the years 1992 and 1993, wherein the Minister disallowed the losses claimed of $19,496 and $9,049 respectively under the provisions of the Income Tax Act

Bowman J.T.C.C.: - The appellant claims a disability tax credit in respect of her husband, Hung Nguyen, under section 118.3 of the Income Tax Act for 1993 on the basis that he had a severe and prolonged physical

Archambault J.T.C.C.: — Mont-Sutton Inc. (Sutton) operates a well- known ski resort in the Eastern Townships. Sutton must make snow in order to provide skiing of excellent quality to its customers. The issue raised in Sutton’s appeal is

Lamarre Proulx J.T.C.C.: — This is an appeal from a reassessment made by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) after reasons for judgment were read at the close of a common hearing of the appeals of four taxpayers, among