MacGuigan, J:—The issue in this case is simply stated: the Government seeks to avoid paying the whole amount of a refund otherwise wholly owing to a taxpayer on the basis of a claimed one-year limitation period which it infers from the language

Cullen, J:—This matter came on for trial at Edmonton, Alberta on the 25th day of February 1985. The plaintiff was not represented by counsel, but did an admirable job presenting her case. There is no dispute concerning the amounts paid but only

Muldoon, J:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the Tax Review Board, rendered on October 26, 1982. By consent, the transcript of the previous proceedings was filed as Exhibit A, and an agreed book of documents was filed as

Addy, J:—The plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as Freeway) is appealing its assessment for income tax purposes for the 1980 taxation year. It received, during that year, a total of $150,000 in interest on a realty mortgage secured on a property which

Ryan, J:—This is a Reference by the Tariff Board to this Court under subsection 28(4) of the Federal Court Act. The reference arises from an appeal to the Tariff Board brought by Dayco (Canada) Limited pursuant to subsection 47(1)

Joyal, J:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a notice of reassessment dated March 9, 1981, confirmed by the defendant on May 3, 1983, with respect to certain taxes imposed under Part XII of the Income Tax Act. The issue

Ryan, J:—This is a reference by the Tariff Board to this Court under subsection 28(4) of the Federal Court Act, which provides:

Reed, J:—This is an action by the plaintiff contesting the Minister’s assessment of its taxable income for the 1972-1977 taxation years. Two aspects of the assessment are in dispute.

The Court:—The respondent’s motion to quash is granted and the section 28 application is accordingly quashed.

Mahoney, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division which vacated the reassessment of the respondent’s 1974 personal income tax return. The Minister of National Revenue had added $327,190.42 to the respondent’s income, being $293,700 damages