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

Cattanach, J:—By notice of motion pursuant to Rule 603 the applicants move for an order that:

Dubé J:—Upon a motion made by counsel on behalf of the applicants to the presiding judge of this Honourable Court for:

Le Juge Décary:—Ce qu'il faut déterminer, c’est de savoir si les dépenses que les docteurs Lalande et Watelle ont encourues et qui sont décrites à l’entente partielle sur les faits, sont de nature revenu, c’est à dire, en vue de gagner

Le Juge Décary:—Il s’agit de déterminer si à la suite de certaines transactions intervenues entre la demanderesse et Clement Robitaille et Raymond Robitaille, ces derniers se devaient, conformément au paragraphe 212(2) et à l'article 212.1 de la Loi