Collier, J. [orally]:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board. The plaintiff claimed, among other things, to deduct from her 1976 tax payable an amount of $1,100 contributed to a federally-registered political party. (See Sections 2 and
Urie, J.:—The issue raised in this appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division, which dismissed the appeal of the appellant from a decision of the Tax Review Board, is whether the respondent was entitled to deduct, as it did in its tax
Reed, J.:—The main issue raised by the plaintiff in this case is whether section 87 of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1970 c. 1-6, operates so as to entitle the plaintiff, as purchaser of certain commodities, to a refund of the federal
Dubé, J.: —By this originating motion the applicants seek an order pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Court Act in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision (in fact two decisions) of the Minister to make
Rouleau, J.:—The plaintiff is appealing by way of trial de novo the reassessment of his income tax returns for the 1981, 1982 and 1983 taxation years.
Lysyk, J.:—The petitioners seek an order quashing a warrant to enter and search issued by McEachern, C.J. on February 27, 1987 pursuant to section 231.3 of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, as amended ("the Act”). The
Dubé, J.:—This is an appeal under Rule 336(5) of the Federal Court Rules from an order of the Senior Prothonotary dated September 30, 1988 ordering the applicant to appear for examination under oath on all the facts alleged in his application to
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.
