Dubé, J [TRANSLATION]:—The question here is whether the reassessments made by the Minister of National Revenue with respect to plaintiff for the 1970, 1971,1972 and 1973 taxation years, adding to the computation of his income already reported the sums of

Urie, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division whereby, on an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board, the fair market value of a common share of the capital stock of Canadian Wallpaper Manufacturers Limited was found

Le Dain, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing the appellant’s appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board which had dismissed an appeal from an income tax re-assessment in respect of the 1967 taxation

Addy, J [TRANSLATION]:—Since the issue in the three above-mentioned actions turns not only on common evidence but on the same statutory provisions and legal principles, in accordance with the earlier order of the Associate Chief Justice and by consent of

Urie, J:—It will not be necessary to call upon you, Mr Verchere.

Maguire, DJ:—These proceedings, appealing from a judgment of the Tax Review Board dated October 26, 1976, are taken pursuant to subsections 172(1) and 175(3) of the Income Tax Act and section 48 and Schedule 1 of the Federal

Heald, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division wherein that Court allowed with costs, the respondent’s appeal from an assessment for non-resident withholding tax and interest, said assessment being dated April 29, 1976.

Walsh, J:—Plaintiff appeals from the taxation of costs dated February 13, 1980, in the amount of $2,727.17. A similar appeal was made in connection with the taxation of costs in the same amount in case No T-249-77 Her Majesty The Queen and

The Court:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing the appellant’s appeal from income tax assessments for the 1968 and 1970 tax years. That appeal was heard in the Trial Division on common evidence with the appeal by

Heald, J:—We are all of the opinion that the learned trial judge correctly concluded that the appellant’s antiknock compound cannot be considered to be a “petroleum product’’ as that term is used in paragraph 83(A)(3)(a) of the Income Tax