Davies, Prov. Ct., J.:—The accused stands charged:

COUNT 1

Urie, J.:—The threshold issue in this appeal from a decision of the Tariff Board, brought pursuant to section 60 of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. c. E-13 and amendments thereto (“the Act”), is whether or not the Board had jurisdiction

The Associate Chief Justice:—This matter, dealing with the interpretation and application of section 31 of the Income Tax Act came on for hearing at Toronto, Ontario, on November 13, 1984 and January 9 and 10, 1985.

Urie, J. (Mahoney, J. concurring):—The sole issue in this appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division is a narrow one. That issue requires the Court to determine whether the respondent was associated with Willmar Window Industries Ltd.

Carrothers, J.A.:—This is a further appeal by the Crown from the judgment of the Honourable Judge Boyle, of the County Court of Vancouver, affirming on a summary conviction appeal to him the decision of His Honour Judge Bendrodt, of the Provincial

Ryan, J.:—This is an appeal by the Crown from a judgment of the Trial Division allowing an appeal by the respondent, The Canada Southern Railway Company (“Canada Southern”) from assessments made by the Minister of National Revenue (“the Minister”) under

Collier, J.:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision, against him, by the then Tax Review Board.

Dubé, J.:—This action turns on the interpretation of subsection 227(9) of the Income Tax Act which reads as follows:

227. (9) Every person who has failed to remit or pay

Pinard, J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada ([1984] C.T.C. 2091; 84 D.T.C. 1081) dated January 12, 1984, dismissing plaintiffs appeal from income tax assessments for its 1976,1977 and 1978 taxation years.

Rouleau, J.:—These actions were tried together on common evidence.