Grande, JA, (dissenting):—I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared for delivery by my brother Cory. He has set forth all the facts and all the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act. The issue
Muldoon, J:—This is an action in appeal from the decision of the Tax Review Board dated May 27, 1983, dismissing the plaintiffs appeal from the notice of assessment dated June 23, 1980, in regard to the plaintiffs 1975 taxation year.
Reed, J:—This case raises a very narrow point of law — the proper interpretation of Regulation 1207(2)(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Regulations, SOR/77-731 as applicable to the 1978 taxation year. The regulation reads as follows:
The Associate Chief Justice:—On February 14, 1985, at Ottawa, I filed written reasons for my disposition of appeals in these two actions from the decision of John E Clegg, Taxing Officer, given by him at Toronto, March 20, 1984. In the
Cullen, J:—There is no real dispute as to the facts in this case.
Dubé, J:—The issue to be resolved in this action is whether the plaintiff (“Plastibeton”), a Montreal manufacturer of precast polymer concrete goods, may benefit from the exempting provisions of paragraphs 26(4)(a), (b) or (c) of the Excise Tax
Reed, J:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the Tax Review Board holding that certain property purchased by the defendant in 1968 had been purchased as a capital acquisition and not as “an adventure in the nature of trade”.
Galligan, J:—This is an application pursuant to section 232 of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1970, c 1-5, to determine whether certain documents seized from the offices of Messrs Perry, Farley and Onyschuk, by persons authorized by the
Collier, J:—This action, and another action T-9225-82, were heard at the same time. Both actions are dismissed. The reasons in this action will apply in the other.
Walsh, J:—This action was heard on common proof with five other actions, No T-3319-81 — Carole I Dickinson v The Queen, No T-3322-81 — Brian C Hill v The Queen, No. T-2031-81 —
