Pratte, J.:—We do not need to hear you, Ms. Lloyd.

We are all of the view that the trial judge could, without error, conclude to the existence of a partnership in this case.

Muldoon, J.:—This action focuses on section 34 of the Excise Tax Act, which section the plaintiff asserts to be unconstitutional, with consonant consequences to the defendant Minister's purporting to act thereunder in regard to the plaintiff’s

Strayer, J.:—This is an application by the defendant requesting that the Court order the plaintiff to provide very extensive particulars prior to the defendant filing its defence.

The Associate Chief Justice — Jerome, A.C.J.:—This action by way of appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada dated November 7, 1983 dismissing the plaintiffs appeal from an income tax reassessment with

Heald, J. (Thurlow, C.J. and Hugessen J. concurring):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division which confirmed a reassessment made by the Minister of National Revenue in respect of the appellant's 1980 income

Killeen, D.C.l.:—The applicant, Mary Constance Wright, seeks a declara- tion that the sum of $18,002.16 now in the hands of the sheriff of the County of Middlesex and arising from a seizure made pursuant to a writ of execution filed by the Federal

McNair, J.:—There are two points involved in this action by way of appeal and cross-appeal. First and foremost is the question whether golf greens and tees are depreciable assets within the meaning of the Income Tax Act and

Rouleau, J.:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff against an income tax reassessment dated May 15, 1979 and confirmed on December 10, 1979 with respect to the 1976 and 1977 taxation years wherein the Minister of National Revenue added to the

Strayer, J.:—The plaintiff appeals with respect to reassessments made of his income by the Minister of National Revenue in respect of taxation years 1977, 1978, and 1979. In respect of each of these years the Minister in the reassessments restricted

Reed, J.:—The plaintiff appeals from a decision of the Minister of National Revenue which restricted the farm losses the plaintiff could deduct for his 1978 taxation year to $5,000. While only the 1978 taxation year is in issue, a decision with