Cattanach, J:—These are three appeals from three assessments made by the Minister of National Revenue of the plaintiff’s income tax for his 1977, 1978 and 1979 taxation years whereby the Minister disallowed deductions for farming losses incurred and claimed by

Ryan, J:—This is an appeal from the order of the Trial Division dated November 10, 1980, dismissing an application by the appellant for an order in the nature of certiorari in respect of a stay of proceedings, filed under sub-

Dubé, J:—The central issue raised by this appeal is whether a bonus in the amount of $325,000 earned by the plaintiff company on a loan of $1,125,000 it made to WWW Developments Ltd (“WWW”) in 1974 was income of the plaintiff taxable in

Clement, DJ:—In this action the plaintiffs-appellants (whom I will call the Administrators) claim relief from taxation under the Income Tax Act by virtue of subsection 70(6) of which the following provisions are relevant:

Walsh, J:—By previous order an action No T-5713-80 Hubert Plante v Her Majesty The Queen was heard immediately following the present action, the facts being substantially the same. The evidence produced in the present

Jerome, ACJ [ORALLY]—This case is an action by way of appeal under the Income Tax Act from a reassessment by the Minister or really from assessment, to be more technically correct, of the plaintiff’s 1977 income tax year

Ryan, J:—The trial judge has found that the sum of $625,420 was income derived by the taxpayer in 1973 from an active business.

Ryan, J:—I agree with the reasons for judgment of the learned trial judge, and, accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal with costs.

Master Garfield:— This is an application made on behalf of the defendants to strike out certain paragraphs of the statement of claim and parts of other paragraphs.

White, J:—The issue in this application is whether paragraph 231 (11)(d) of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148 (“the Act”) and by implication its procedural appendage, subsection 231(2) of the Act, violate section 8 of the