Rip, T.C.J.:—The appellant, Richard D. Tafel, appeals against income tax assessments for 1980 and 1984 in which the Minister of National Revenue, the respondent, reduced the amounts of the premiums paid to a registered retirement savings plan eligible for a

Brulé, T.C.J.:—The present appeal is from the Minister’s reassessment of the 1983 taxation year by which he disallowed the appellant's Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan ("R.H.O.S.P.") top-up deduction in the amount of $9,000 on the basis that the appellant

Christie, A.C.J.T.C.:—These undisputed facts were submitted to the Court. By assessment made May 21, 1986, the respondent included in computing the appellant’s income for her 1985 taxation year $14,576.19 under paragraph 56(1)(a) of the Income Tax

Brulé, T.C.J.: —This is an appeal from reassessments of income tax for the 1980 and 1981 taxation years. The reassessments were made on the basis that the taxpayer was not carrying on a business with a reasonable expectation of profit and

Taylor, T.CJ.:—This is an appeal against an income tax assessment, for the year 1983, heard on March 4, 1987, in London, Ontario. There were two issues: the first identical to that determined in Glen Capling, Executor of The

Taylor, T.C.J.:—This is an appeal against an income tax assessment, for the year 1984, heard on March 4, 1987, in London, Ontario, in which the Minister of National Revenue had adjusted the income tax return of the estate to reflect the

Bonner, T.CJ.: —In his returns of income for the 1980 and 1981 taxation years the appellant sought to deduct losses of $6,729.47 and $9,114.84 from operations which he carried on during the years ending November 30, 1980 and 1981, respectively

Joyal, J.:—The plaintiff-taxpayer appeals from a tax reassessment issued by the defendant on May 24, 1983 covering the 1979 taxation year.

Cullen, J.: —My colleague, McNair, J., granted the defendant the right to file a conditional appearance, contingent on a finding of jurisdiction of this court. Another colleague, Teitelbaum, J., heard argument from both parties and then adjourned the

Smith J. [Orally]:—The question in this proceeding is whether Judge J.D. Smith was right to stay proceedings in the prosecution of the accused Yogendra Sharma under section 239 of the Income Tax Act, the prosecution being under