The Associate Chief Justice:—These motions pursuant to Rule 344 to review decisions of the Taxing Officer, came on for hearing at Toronto, Ontario, on May 7, 1984. The trial in these matters took place at London, Ontario, in February of

Collier, J:—The plaintiff, in 1967, was the owner of certain corporate shares. Between October 13 and October 17 of that year, he transferred to two sons, by way of gift, 798 of the shares. The Minister of National Revenue reassessed the plaintiff

McNair, J:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the Minister’s assessment of tax for its 1979 and 1980 taxation years. The issue is whether subsection 129(6) of the Income Tax Act, applies to certain interest payments made by a

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 The application was originally made “pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules respecting Criminal Proceedings”.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