Marceau J.:—We are all of the view that this appeal is well founded. The learned motions judge was wrong in granting the respondents' application for review of the taxation of the appellants’ costs under Rule 346 of the General Rules

McNair, J.:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the Minister's reassessments with respect to the 1976, 1977 and 1978 taxation years whereby portions of reserves claimed by the plaintiff were disallowed and added back into income. Three statements of

Cumming, J. [Orally]:—The appellant, the Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen in right of Canada, appeals pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 108 and section 106 of the Bankruptcy Act from the disallowance on May 7,

Pinard, J.:—This is a motion dated the 8th day of May, 1986 on behalf of the plaintiff for “an Order pursuant to sections 18 and 44 of the Federal Court Act, quashing the seizure of the ship ‘Orion Expeditor" and returning

The Associate Chief Justice:—This matter, dealing with the interpretation and application of paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act came on for hearing at London, Ontario on December 10, 1985.

Pratte, J.:—Ms. Lloyd and Ms. Burns, we do not need to hear you. We are all of opinion that this appeal must fail.

Walsh, J.:—The plaintiffs move for:

Joyal, J.:

Urie, J.:—The judgment appealed from, delivered by the Trial Division, is one of five here under appeal. Those judgments arose from actions taken to appeal reassessments for income tax levied by the respondent against each of the appellants. The actions

Pratte, J. [TRANSLATION]:—As his first argument, Mr. Régnier cited the error allegedly made by the trial judge in assuming that the appellant had the burden of showing that the assessments were incorrect.