Collier, J. [Orally]:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada. The reasons of Judge Goetz are reported at [1985] 2 C.T.C. 2331; 85 D.T.C. 613. He allowed the defendant taxpayer's appeal.

Dubé, J.:—This application heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on September 29, 1987, is for an order dismissing the plaintiff's actions (excepting the action concerning the 1975 and 1976 taxation years of the plaintiff John Miazga) as scandalous, frivolous and

Pratte, J.: —This is an appeal from a judgment of the trial division (Reed, J.) allowing with costs an appeal by the respondent from income tax reassessments of its 1974,1975 and 1976 taxation years.

Mahoney, J.:—The appellant commenced an action arising out of one or more disputes with the Department of National Revenue. Omitting the purely scurrilous, paragraph 1 identifies the plaintiff and paragraphs 2 and 3 allege that “false requests" were sent to

Quigley, J.:—This is an appeal by the Crown from the acquittal of the respondent on two counts alleging offences committed by him contrary to section 242 of the Income Tax Act (Canada), R.S.C. 1952, as amended. The wording

Muldoon, ].: —This matter is brought before the Court on the application of the above named defendants Norberg and Sasnett. It concerns, in essence, this Court's jurisdiction to implead the said defendants and to adjudicate the plaintiffs’ claims against

Muldoon, J.:—The plaintiff, Border Chemical, brings this appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada, by way of trial de novo. The matter at issue is whether the plaintiff's former subsidiary corporation is entitled to deduct

The Associate Chief Justice:—The applicant seeks an order by way of mandamus under section 18 of the Federal Court Act requiring the respondent to issue certificates pursuant to section 44.25 of the Excise

Cullen, J.:— This is an appeal by way of statement of claim from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada delivered April 17,1985 allowing the defendant's appeal of a notice of reassessment issued by the Minister of National Revenue on Spetember

Rouleau, J.:—This is a motion by the defendant-applicant under Rule 337(5) asking the Court to reconsider the terms of the pronouncement of judgment without a personal appearance. The reasons given in support of this motion are as follows: