Cullen, J.:— This is an appeal from a reassessment of tax for the plaintiff's 1980 taxation year. In this reassessment the Minister of National Revenue, (Minister) disallowed amounts deducted on account of cargo claims and fines paid under the

Heald, J.: —The learned Tax Court judge decided that, in an application such as this, the applicant carries the onus of showing that it would be just and equitable to grant the extension of time sought and that the application was brought

Pratte, J.:—With respect to the two main issues raised on this appeal, despite Mr. Pitfield’s able argument, we are in full agreement with the reasons of the trial judge.

Urie, J.: —This application pursuant to section 28 of the Federal Court Act seeks to set aside a judgment rendered by the Associate Chief Judge of the Tax Court of Canada, in which he held that issue estoppel based on

Pratte, J.: —We are all of the opinion that the decision of the Trial Division cannot be reconciled with the recent judgment of this Court in The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

Collier, J.: —This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada, [1986] 2 C.T.C. 2359; 86 D.T.C. 1752. The Court held certain annual payments made by the plaintiff to his former wife, in determining his taxable income for

LeBel, J.A.: — La Couronne se pourvoit contre des jugements prononcés par la Cour supérieure, à Québec, les 11 novembre et 13 décembre 1985, par l'honorable juge en chef Pierre Côté (m.a. pp. 60 à 67). Ce dernier rejetait alors son

Meredith, J.:—The petitioner seeks an order to quash a search warrant and for the return of documents seized thereunder. The warrant was issued and the documents seized upon information that the search would provide evidence that a person attempted to

Pinard, J.: — Upon an application on behalf of the defendant, Her Majesty the Queen, dated April 5, 1988 for an order pursuant to Rules 419(1)(b), (c) and (f) of the Federal Court Rules striking out

Scullion, Prov. Ct. J. [Orally]: —This is an application by the accused for me to review my rulings that were made on November 24 and December 22, 1987. Review of the facts is in order and I am quoting mostly from the defence's Outline of Argument.

On December 3, 1986, an information was laid charging the accuseds with offences allegedly committed contrary to paragraphs 239(1)(a) and 239(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, as amended (herein the

"I.T.A.").