Addy, J:—These three actions were, on consent, ordered to be tried together on common evidence.

Morden, JA:—The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue appeals, and Usarco Limited cross-appeals, from an order of Mr Justice Linden made on August 21, 1979 quashing, in part, an order of His Honour Judge Scime

Grant, DJ:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff pursuant to subsection 172(2) of the Income Tax Act in respect of assessments of its returns for the years 1975 and 1976 made by the Minister of National Revenue dated August 22,

Morden, JA:—In this appeal we are primarily concerned with the proper interpretation of subsection 231(4) of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148 as enacted by SC 1970-71-72, c 63 section 1. This provision and subsection (5),

The Court:—The submissions made on behalf of the appellant have not pursuaded us that there was any error in law in the result reached by the Federal Court of Appeal. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

McMeekin, DCJ:—The corporate and individual accused are jointly charged as follows:

Addy, J:—These two cases were, on consent, ordered to be tried together on common evidence. Both appeals involve income tax assessments for the 1975 taxation year of the plaintiffs. The facts are really not in issue.

Hughes, CJNB:—The question raised by this appeal concerns the priority, if any, of the claim of Her Majesty in right of the Province of New Brunswick as represented by the Provincial Tax Commissioner (herein referred to as “the Crown”), in respect

Grant, DJ:—This is an appeal by the Crown from a decision of the Tax Review Board dated April 5, 1979, whereby the Board allowed the defendant’s appeal from a reassessment of her 1976 income tax return made by the Minister of National Revenue

Clement, J:—This appeal arises out of an authorization of seizure given in February 1975 under subsection 231(4) of the Income Tax Act, as amended by SC 1970-71-72, c 63, resulting inaveryextensiveseizureof documents of the appellants. The