Urie, J. (Heald, J. concurring): — This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Collier in the Trial Division, in which he allowed the respond ent's appeal from an assessment issued by the Minister of National Revenue (“the Minister") with
Joyal, J.:—Prior to the date set for the trial of the foregoing actions, it was agreed that they should proceed together on the basis of common evidence.
Heald, J.:—We do not need to hear you, Ms. Lee. We are all of the view that the learned trial judge correctly applied the provisions of paragraph 20(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act to the facts of this case. We share
Addy, J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada pertaining to the reassessment of the plaintiff for income tax purposes for the 1980 taxation year.
Teitelbaum, J.:—Plaintiff, Her Majesty the Queen, is claiming from the defendant, Dame Andrée Denise Pharand (Pharand) the total sum of $84,759.19.
Collier, J.:—This action was heard at the same time as another, T-1375-80. There was common evidence and common issues. The reasons in this action will apply in the other.
McNair, J.:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the Minister’s reassessments with respect to the 1972 and 1973 taxation years whereby certain remuneration was treated as income from an office or employment and not as earnings from a professional partnership.
Mahoney, J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division, [1984] C.T.C. 141; 84 D.T.C. 6087, which found that the respondent, a nonresident of Canada, had not carried on business in Canada in 1976 and that, therefore, it was not
Muldoon, J.:—This appeal is taken in regard to the plaintiffs 1975, 1976 and 1977 taxation years. In the course of its business, the plaintiff is frequently obliged to relocate segments of its pipelines at the instance of various persons, firms,
