Mother's Pizza Parlour Ltd. v. The Queen, 85 DTC 5271, [1985] 1 CTC 361 (FCTD), aff'd supra. -- text

Rouleau, J:—These two actions were heard together on essentially common evidence and were the object of identical argument by counsel. Both actions were brought against the Crown pursuant to sections 172 and 175 of the Income Tax Act,

The Queen v. Central Tobacco Mfg. (1980), Ltd., 85 DTC 5300, [1985] 1 CTC 357 (FCTD) -- text

Walsh, J:—Plaintiff moves pursuant to Rule 1718(3) and 603 of the Federal Court Rules for an order striking the defendant’s cross-demand herein and more specifically paragraphs 56 to 80 and conclusions 2, 3 and 4 thereof, or alternatively that the

Petro-Canada Inc v. The Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise, [1985] 1 CTC 353, [1985] DTC 5268 -- text

Mahoney, J:—This is an appeal pursuant to section 60 of the Excise Tax Act from a decision of the Tariff Board which held that two compressors and ancillary equipment, hereafter the “booster compressors”, were not exempt from

Consolidated-Bathurst Limited v. Her Majesty the Queen, [1985] 1 CTC 351, [1985] DTC 5244 -- text

Strayer, J:—I issued reasons for judgment in this case on February 15, 1985. I requested counsel for the defendant to draft a judgment in accordance with the reasons and if necessary to seek further directions. Counsel for both parties appeared before

The Queen v. Dzagic, 85 DTC 5252, [1985] 1 CTC 346 (S.C.O.), rev'd 86 DTC 6432, [1986] 2 CTC 288 (Ont CA) -- text

Smith, J:—This matter is before me on a case stated at the request of the Attorney General of Canada pursuant to section 762 of the Criminal Code. A second and similar stated case in the matter of Steve Dzagic will follow the

Pages

Subscribe to Tax Interpretations RSS