Pratte, J. [Translation]:—The appellant is appealing from a judgment of Dubé, J. of the Trial Division which allowed an appeal brought by the respondent from a decision of the Tax Review Board and restored the assessments vacated by that decision.

Martin, J.:—This is an appeal from the June 18, 1984 decision of the Tax Court of Canada affirming the assessments of the Minister of National Revenue for the plaintiff's taxation years from 1977 to 1981 inclusive.

Mahoney, J.:—This is an appeal from the refusal of the Trial Division to dismiss the respondents' action for want of prosecution and failure to provide full examination for discovery and to comply with an earlier order of the Court as to discovery.

The Associate Chief Justice: —In this action brought pursuant to subsection 172(2) of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, as amended, the plaintiff appeals the reassessment for the 1979 taxation year including in his

Irving, J.:—The main issue in this appeal is whether the appellant is liable to the payment of income tax if, as is argued, the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, as amended, and certain “spending” statutes, being the

Dubé, J.:—The central issue in this income tax case is whether the plaintiff was for the taxation year 1978 a “class (1) farmer" and thus entitled to deduct the loss from his farming business for that year under section 31 of the

Pinard, J. [Translation]:—On June 4, 1986, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada obtained from this Court, under Court number ITA-1665-86, a certificate whose effect was to guarantee the debt of the defendant, Transport Voyer Inc., to the Department

Urie, J.: —For the reasons given in appeal No. A-158-86, Her Majesty the Queen v. Dresden Farm Equipment Ltd., the respondent will be entitled to his taxable costs pursuant to subsection 178(2) of the

Rouleau, J.:—The plaintiff appeals the confirmation by the Minister of National Revenue of a reassessment made of the plaintiff's income tax return for the 1983 taxation year. The question is whether or not the plaintiff qualifies for the small business