Heald J.: —This is an application by the appellants for an order, pursuant to Rule 1204, to include in the contents of the case on appeal, the affidavit of Fred M. Traer, and exhibits sworn on April 15, 1987 and the affidavit of Barry

Pinard J. [Translation] : —This is an appeal by an action pursuant to subsections 172(2) and 175(3) of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, as amended, brought by the taxpayer Sani Sport Inc. following a notification of

Mahoney, J.:—This section 28 application seeks to set aside a decision of the Minister of National Revenue fixing the amount of a payment to be made to the Kamloops School Board under paragraph 46(1) (a) of the Excise Tax Act,

Martin, J:—The reasons for the judgment in this matter will apply, at the request and by the agreement of counsel for the parties, to causes T-1895-85 and T-956-86. Although the actions are in respect of the validity of reassessments, the quantum

Joyal, J.: —This is an application to review certain amounts alowed to the plaintiff by way of party and costs by the taxing officer in his certificate dated January 14, 1987 and for which the taxing officer provided the parties with

Cullen, J.:—The plaintiff appeals from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada dated June 12, 1985, wherein the Court ruled that any losses experienced by the plaintiff by reason of his farming operation in the course of taxation years 1977 and

Steele J.:—This is an application under subsection 446(15) of the Criminal Code (the Code) by an officer of the Department of National Revenue to examine and, where necessary, make copies of items seized by the Ontario Provincial Police and

The Associate Chief Justice:—This appeal of the plaintiffs income tax reassessments for the years 1980 and 1981 came on for hearing at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 13 and 14, 1987. In the years in question the plaintiff granted

Mahoney, J.:—We are of the opinion that the learned trial judge did not err in the result. The facts are fully set out in the judgment below and we agree that the rent in issue was properly to be treated as a capital outlay for

Henry, J. [Orally]:—This matter was argued before me on an urgent basis because the charges under the Income Tax Act against the taxpayer were to have come on for trial in the Provincial Court (Criminal Division) of the