Addy, J:—The issue before the court is whether the plaintiff is entitled to benefit from the rollover provisions of paragraph 44(1 )(b) of the Income Tax Act with regard to an eleven-suite apartment building situated at 119, 29th Avenue

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,

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

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

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

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

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