Martin, J.:—This matter came on for hearing at Halifax, Nova Scotia on the 11th day of February 1986. The defendant applies for an order pursuant to Rule 341 of the Federal Court Rules dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal from notices of reassessment

Reed, J.:—The dispute in this case is one concerning the amount of income tax payable by the plaintiff. It arises out of dealings between the plaintiff and Pillar International Services Limited, a Bermuda corporation. It relates to what is called

Collier, J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the then Tax Review Board.

The plaintiff had appealed assessments, by the Minister of National Revenue, of his income tax for 1973,1974 and 1975.

Collier, J. [ORALLY]:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board: see [1984] C.T.C. 2033; 84 D.T.C. 1042.

Pinard, J. [Translation]:—This appeal is pursuant to subsection 172(2) of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, as amended and is brought by the taxpayer Michel Larivière against a notice of reassessment by the Minister of

Pratte, J.:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing an appeal from income tax reassessments under Part III of the Income Tax Act.

Addy, J.:—The present application is for certiorari pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Court Act to quash an assessment of the applicant for income tax purposes made by notice of assessment dated the March 26,1985

Joyal, J.:—On September 28, 1976, in Montreal, a settlement out of court was negotiated between the plaintiff herein and a Crown-owned Newfoundland Company called Newfoundland Steel Corporation (NESCO). The settlement was for damages for breach of contract. The

Denault, J. [TRANSLATION]:—The plaintiff Danzas S.A., with its head office located in Switzerland, and its Canadian subsidiary are companies specializing in the carriage of air freight, and they are claiming from the defendant damages amounting to U.S. $656,952.70,

Denault, J.:—The plaintiff is appealing from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada. The facts in this matter are the same as those of a co-employee Ray Bastien (T-507-85) and since these actions were heard together on common evidence, the Court