Reed, J.:—This is an application by the plaintiff for a declaration, a writ of certiorari, or a mandatory injunction. The claim results from the seizure of the plaintiff’s vessel “Fort Good Hope" pursuant to the Customs Act,

Collier, J. [ORALLY]—Mr. Chhabra, I am going to dismiss your appeal against the order that the prothonotary made, and my reasons are these.

Stone, J.:—The appellant has sought registration as a “charitable organization” under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 as amended by S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63 and as further amended. Its application for

Reed, J.:—This application is brought by the plaintiff to compel the production for discovery of two officers of the defendant corporations, pursuant to sections 465(1 )(b) and 465(8) of the Federal Court Rules. The actions to which the discovery relate

Walsh, J.:—Plaintiff moves pursuant to Rule 465(18) of the Federal Court Rules that defendant answer the following questions:

Teitelbaum, J.:—By means of a direct action in the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, the plaintiff is contesting the reassessment made by the Minister of National Revenue. The said reassessment, dated April 7, 1982, added the sum of $50,000 to

McNair, ).:—This is an appeal by way of action pursuant to section 172 of the Income Tax Act from a notice of reassessment dated November 4, 1982 in respect of the plaintiff's 1981 taxation year. The reassessment was

Mahoney, J.:—These are three appeals and cross appeals from judgments of the Trial Division, [1984] C.T.C. 387; 84 D.T.C. 6374, respecting the re- spondent's income tax assessments for its 1975, 1976 and 1977 taxation years. The respondent concedes that the

Mahoney, J.:—We are in substantial agreement with the reasons for judgment of the learned trial judge herein and would dismiss the appeal with costs. In our opinion, where the business of a taxpayer is the sale of franchises to others, the proceeds

Marceau J.:—We are all of the view that this appeal is well founded. The learned motions judge was wrong in granting the respondents' application for review of the taxation of the appellants’ costs under Rule 346 of the General Rules