Hugessen, J.A.:—This section 28 application seeks to set aside an order of the Tax Court of Canada extending the time for filing a notice of objection. Notwithstanding the respondent's consent to an order allowing the application, we required argument as

Sopinka, J.:—The issue in this case is whether the respondent may be ordered to produce an officer for examination for discovery pursuant to Rule 465(1) of the Federal Court Rules, C.R.C. 1978, c. 663. The Trial Division of the

Hugessen, J.:—This is an appeal to this Court under the now repealed provisions of the Excise Tax Act [1] from a declaration of the Tariff Board dated Customs and Excise

McNair, J.:—The plaintiff's action is an appeal from income tax reassessments disallowing the following losses claimed in respect of tree farm operations during the taxation years in question:

Hugessen, J.:—We are all in general agreement with the reasons and conclusions of the learned trial judge. We do not read subsection 32(1) of the Income Tax Act! [1] as requiring a taxpayer belonging to the

Hugessen, J.:—The appellant is an employer. It withheld amounts from its employees' wages in respect of income tax, as required by section 153 of the Income Tax Act. It did not remit those amounts within the time prescribed

Mahoney, J. (MacGuigan, J. concurring): —This appeal is concerned with the application of subsection 31(1) of the Income Tax Act to the respondent in respect of his 1977,1978 and 1979 taxation years. The issue is

Joyal, J.: —The individual plaintiffs appeal against their tax assessment disallowing certain business expenses claimed by them in their returns for the 1983 taxation year. The plaintiffs all reside in the Greater Vancouver area.

Pinard, J. [Translation]:—The appeal at bar is an action under subsections 172(1) and 175(3) of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63 and its amendments, which was lodged by the taxpayer St-Romuald Construction Ltée following a

Pinard, J. [Translation]:—The case at bar is an appeal by the plaintiff of a decision by the Tax Court of Canada which had upheld notices of tax reassessments from the Minister of Revenue Canada serving to deny this taxpayer the right to