Pratte, J.A.: — We will not need to hear you, Mr. Roy. The subject judgment appears to be based primarily on the finding of the trial judge that all the management services needed by MSS Inc. were provided to it by its own
Dubé, J.:—The issue to be resolved in this appeal of a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada is whether the plaintiff was for the 1978, 1979 and 1980 taxation years a ''class (1) farmer" and thus entitled to deduct the loss from his
JEROME, A.C.J.: —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 reassessments for the 1981, 1982 and 1983 taxation years issued by the
Urie, J.A.: —We are all of the opinion that the appeal must fail. We have not been persuaded that the learned trial judge made an error in his assessment of the evidence, in his findings of fact or in the application of the
Strayer, J.: —
MacKay, J.: —This matter, heard June 26, 1989 in Toronto, dealt with an application by the original respondent in this matter, the Satellite corporation, for return of an outstanding motion dated December 22, 1988, made pursuant to subsection 225.2(8)
Strayer, J.: —
This is an appeal against the reassessments made by the Minister of National Revenue of the plaintiff's income tax for taxation years 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985.
Marceau, J.A.: — This is an appeal against a judgment of Addy, J. of the Trial Division of this Court whereby, upon motion made by the defendant, Her Majesty the Queen, pursuant to rule 419(1)(a) [1] of the Federal
MacGuigan, J.A.: — Without necessarily endorsing all of the propositions of law adopted by the trial judge, we are nevertheless of the view that he made no error of law relevant to the result in the case at bar. Although the strict
Marceau, J.A.: —In spite of the able argument of counsel for the appellant, we have not been persuaded that the judge of first instance has committed any reviewable error in disposing of the case as he did. It may be that some of
