Rothstein J.T.C.C.: — On this motion to vacate reassessments by reason of the Minister not proceeding with all due dispatch to confirm the reassessments, the Court is bound by the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Bolton

Jerome J.T.C.C.: —

Hugessen J.A.: — In this appeal we are called upon to decide whether the provision of free access to the information highway is a charitable activity so as to qualify the organization providing such access as a registered charity within the meaning

Robertson J.A.: — This appeal was heard together with the appeal in Court File No. A-348-94. For the reasons given in that appeal, a copy of which is annexed hereto, I would dismiss this appeal with costs on the basis set forth in

McDonald J.A.: — This application has been heard at the same time as the application in court file A426/95. A copy of these reasons will be filed in court file A426/95 and will constitute the reasons for judgment in that file.

Thackray J.: — The petitioners ask for an order pursuant to section 232(4) of the Income Tax Act that they have solicitor-client privilege over the file of Douglas W. Welder. Mr. Welder is a barrister and solicitor who

Desjardins J.T.C.C.: — The question raised in this appeal is whether the judge of the Tax Court of Canada was correct in vacating the respondent’s assessment for the taxation years 1987 and 1988 on the basis that the Minister of National

MacGuigan J.T.C.C.: - This is an appeal by Flexi-Coil Ltd. (“Flexi”) a farm machine manufacturer, from a decision by Archambault J.T.C.C., which confirmed income tax assessments of the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) for the 1988 and 1989

Linden J.T.C.C.: — The issue in this appeal is whether the respondent taxpayer, Duha Printers (Western) Ltd., is permitted to deduct from its 1985 taxable income non-capital losses of $460,786. The taxpayer claims that the right to deduct the losses

Hugessen J.T.C.C.: — Mr. Justice Pratte and I are of the view that there was no manifest error in the Tax Court judge’s finding that the Appellant had undertaken to pay its subcontractor, Vidalin’s, employees and to withhold and remit