Hugessen, J.:—In 1978 the appellants acquired shares in the capital stock of their employer, Mitchell Installations Ltd. (“Mitchell”). Since Mitchell is a “Canadian controlled, private company”*, [1] they claim that they are taxable under the

Rouleau, J. [Translation]:—This is an application to review an order by the Minister of National Revenue which directed the applicant to pay forthwith the total amount of the reassessments made for 1983 and 1984. The total amount of tax, penalties and

Pinard, J. [Translation]:—This is an appeal in the form of an action pursuant to subsections 172(1) and 175(3) of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, c. 63, as amended, brought by the taxpayer M.S.S. Inc. against a decision of

Joyal, J.:—This matter concerns an ex parte application by the plaintiffs for an order for service ex juris on two named defendants residing in Seattle, Washington, namely, Reginald H. Norberg and Donald J. Sasnett.

Pratte, J.:—This is an appeal from a judgment of Rouleau, J. of the Trial Division allowing with costs the respondent's appeal from income tax reassessments made by the Minister of National Revenue in respect of the respondent's 1973, 1974 and 1975

Mahoney, J. (Heald, J concurring):—This is an appeal from an interlocutory order by the other defendant in the action described in my concurrent reasons for judgment in appeal no. A-365-86. For the reasons given therein, I accept that

Mahoney, J.:—This appeal is taken against the following interlocutory order of the Trial Division:

Urie, J.:—This appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division in which the appellant’s appeal from a reassessment for income tax was dismissed, raises an interesting question of statutory interpretation.

Pratte, J.:—We do not need to hear you, Mr. Vita.

Dubé, J:—This motion (heard all day yesterday) is for a writ of prohibition restraining the Tariff Board from holding a hearing to reconsider its decision dated September 19, 1986 in Reference/Appeal No. 2294. The Board hearing is to be held tomorrow,