Cullen J.: — This is an application for judicial review, pursuant to section 18.1 of the Federal Court Act, of a decision of Mark Deakin, Director, Kitchener District Office of Revenue Canada, dated September 14, 1995,

Strayer J.T.C.C.: — The appeal raises two questions.

1. Were the amounts provided by the Government of Alberta to the respondent “assistance” as a

Jerome J.T.C.C.: — These three applications for judicial review of requirements issued by the respondent pursuant to section 231.2 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) came on for hearing together before me at Vancouver, British

Teitelbaum J.: — The respondent informs me that he intends to make an application to declare the federal Income Tax Act ultra vires. I do not intend to prejudge his application, not having seen his application nor

Rothstein J.: — This is an appeal de novo from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada. The issues are whether amounts received by others were in reality the income of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a lawyer practising in

Heald D.J.: — This is an action commenced by Statement of Claim filed October 7, 1983, wherein the Plaintiff appeals the reassessments under the Income Tax Act [1] (the “Act”) in respect of the 1977-1980

Gibson J.: — This action arises out of a reassessment made by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) on 20 March, 1985 in respect of the plaintiff’s 1982 taxation year. The plaintiff appealed the Minister’s reassessment to the Tax

Simpson J.T.C.C.: — Let the attached transcript of my Reasons for Order delivered orally from the Bench in Toronto, Ontario, the 6th day of November, 1995, now edited, be filed to comply with section 51 of the Federal Court

Simpson J.: — Grant Wilson (the “Taxpayer”) appeals a reassessment of his 1978 Income Tax Return on the basis that the Minister of National Revenue (“Revenue Canada”) failed to reassess with due dispatch following a notice of objection as required

Cases cited:-

Oke v. Speller, [1921] 1 W.W.R. 1117, [1922] 59 D.L.R. 678;