Joyal, J.:—This is an action for debt instituted by the plaintiff, Her Majesty the Queen, against the defendant, Jay Norris Canada Inc. The trial was heard in Montreal on January 21 and 22, 1986.

Strayer, J.:—This is an appeal from the Tax Court of Canada with respect to its decision upholding reassessments by the Minister of National Revenue of the plaintiff’s income tax for 1978, 1979 and 1980.

The Associate Chief Justice:—This action by way of appeal from a judgment of the Tax Review Board dated April 29, 1982, allowing the defendant's appeal in respect of its 1977 and 1978 taxation years, came on for hearing at London,

Teitelbaum, J.:—This is an appeal from a judgment of Judge Guy Tremblay of the Tax Court of Canada rendered on January 30, 1984.

Muldoon, J.:—The issue in contention in this appeal is whether or not the plaintiff was obliged, in regard to its 1978 and 1979 taxation years, to have deducted or withheld for remission to the Receiver General, tax equal to 15 per cent of

Cullen, J.:—This case and that of the plaintiff’s husband, Demetrios Gian- nakos (Court No. T-304-85), were heard together on common evidence. My reasons for judgment in T-304-85 apply equally to this case and read as follows.

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.