Dubé, J:—The central issue to be resolved here is whether the building of access roads, fireguards and landings on timber limits by a contractor for a logging operator is “logging” within the meaning of subparagraph 127(10)

Mahoney J:—This is an application under Rule 474 for a preliminary determination of a question of law: whether, in the circumstances, the reassessment of the plaintiff’s 1976 income tax return was made within the time prescribed by subsection 152(4) of

Décary, J:—The issue in this matter is to determine if the share of plaintiff in an amount of $65,000 received by a real estate partnership when a deposit was forfeited, is a taxable capital gain under the provisions of the Income

Jerome, ACJ:—There are two issues in this action, which is brought by way of an appeal under the Income Tax Act, in which the taxpayer, Chis- topher Haber, appeals a determination from the minister.

Le Juge Décary:—Il s’agit d’une action de la demanderesse qui conteste une cotisation d’impôt sur le revenu pour son année d’imposition 1975 dans laquelle le Ministre du revenu national a inclus au revenu de la demanderesse pour l’année d’imposition

Heald J:—I have concluded that the appeal should be allowed, and the notice sent by E A Chater, Director, Registration Division of the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, acting as the Minister’s delegate (pursuant to Income Tax Regulation 900(7)*,

Keith, J:—This appeal from the notice of reassessment by the respondent of the appellant’s income for its fiscal year ending December 31, 1974, comes to this Court pursuant to the provisions of Part V, Division F, sections 155 to 160 inclusive of

Thurlow, CJ:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division which allowed with costs an appeal by the Crown from a judgment of the Tax Review Board and held the appellant not entitled to a deduction in respect of child care

Cattanach, J:—This is an appeal by Her Majesty from a decision of the Tax Review Board whereby the defendant’s appeal from an assessment of the defendant by the Minister of National Revenue to income tax for his 1978 taxation year was allowed

Mahoney, J:—In issue is the proper income tax treatment of $25,000 received by the plaintiff in 1979. The Defendant has assessed the entire amount to tax; the plaintiff reported as income and now pleads that the $25,000 was a termination payment