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

Cullen, J.: —The trial of these matters was heard together and on common evidence.

Mahoney, J:—We are in agreement with the reasons for judgment of the learned trial judge herein. The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Stone, J.:—This is an appeal from the judgment of Reed, J. in the Trial Division rendered February 13, 1985 ([1985] 1 C.T.C. 192; 85 D.T.C. 5144) whereby a claim in respect of the years 1972 through 1977 that a particular capital property of

Hugessen, J.:—We are all of the view that the trial judge committed no manifest error that could be a basis for intervention by this Court when he held that the sum of $936,512 received by the respondent in 1974 was only an advance on

Reed, J.: —The issue in this case is a very narrow one: whether the “thin capitalization rules" apply to limit the amount of interest the plaintiff can claim as an expense as against its income for the 1978 taxation year.

Dubé, J.: —By this income tax appeal the plaintiff (at times referred to as "Speedy Muffler”) claims that its activities in assembling and installing exhaust systems on motor vehicles constituted an active business of manufacturing and processing goods for

Maher, J: —In these matters three applications are made for a determination as to whether the actions by The Minister of National Revenue (hereinafter referred to as "the Minister”), directing that the applicant taxpayers forthwith pay the amounts of

Cullen, J.:—This is an appeal by way of a statement of claim from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada dated January 5, 1986, which allowed in part the plaintiff's appeal from notices of reassessment issued by the Minister of National