Muldoon, J:—This litigation is concerned with the effects of retroactive tax legislation. The plaintiff corporation is appealing from an income tax assessment whereby the Minister of National Revenue disallowed $1,057,916 of the plaintiffs royalty expense claim of

Muldoon, J:—In this case, the plaintiffs counsel asserts, as his primary principle, that which, in effect, was one of the basic slogans of a couple of revolutions: no taxation without representation. Here is how counsel put it in his own words,

Hugessen, J:—This is an application for extension of time in which to bring a section 28 application against a decision of the Minister of National Revenue rejecting an application for refund made under subsection 44(7) of the Excise Tax

Rosenberg, J:—This is an application to quash the retention order made by the Honourable Judge Kenneth William Warrender on the first day of April, 1980. The application was originally made “pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules respecting Criminal Proceedings”.

Montgomery, J:—This application by way of certiorari and prohibition seeks to preclude the Provincial Court judges in Hamilton-Wentworth from hearing twenty-two counts of filing false and deceptive income tax returns against the respondents on the ground

Hugessen, J [ORALLY]:—This is an appeal pursuant to section 60 of the Excise Tax Act from a declaration made by the Tariff Board under section 59 of that Act to the effect that the Air Transportation Tax payable by the

Joyal, J:—The trial of this action took place in Toronto on September 18, 19, 20 and 21, 1984. The plaintiff Hadley was appealing from a decision of Mr Rolland Saint-Onge, QC, as he then was, of the Tax Review Board rendered on February

McNair, J:—The actions shown in this consolidated style of cause are appeals by the three plaintiffs from assessments for income tax which were tried before the Honourable Mr Justice Cattanach on April 19, 20, 21 and 22, 1983 and May 11, 1983.

Dubé, J:—The issue to be resolved in these three income tax cases is whether the sum of $18,000, $19,000 and $17,000 paid by the plaintiff to his wife on April 24, 1979, January 1, 1980 and January 1, 1981, respectively are deductible under

Heald, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division which dismissed the appellant’s (plaintiffs) appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board with respect to the respondent’s 1976 taxation year. The sole issue in the appeal is