Collier, J.: —This is a motion, for an order giving the plaintiff leave to file an amended statement of claim. There is an identical motion in another action T-1788-84 between the same parties. These reasons will apply, as well, in that

Collier, J.:—This action was initially commenced by way of an originating notice of motion. However, at the hearing before me on July 14, 1987, the parties agreed that this matter would be treated as the trial of an action. It was further

Urie, J.A.: — The sole issue in this case is whether the respondent during its 1976 and 1977 taxation years manufactured or processed goods for sale or lease within the meaning of paragraph 125.1 (3)(a) of the Income Tax Act

Urie, J.A.:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division whereby the appeal by the respondent from income tax assessments made by the Minister of National Revenue ("the Minister”) in respect of the respondent's 1977, 1978 and 1979 taxation

Rouleau, J.: —This is an appeal by the taxpayer from the decision of the Tax Court of Canada, who upheld the Minister’s assessment. It was determined that certain moneys received by the taxpayer in the 1979 taxation year pursuant to a

McNair, J.: —This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the Minister of National Revenue's reassessment of income for the 1980 taxation year. The first issue is whether the Minister was correct in treating as inventory the cost of spare parts

Joyal, J.: —This is an appeal by the Crown, by way of a trial de novo, from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada allowing the defendant taxpayer certain expenses against commission income earned by him in the taxation

Joyal, J.: —This Court faces two issues relating to the plaintiff's tax liability under the Income Tax Act. One issue is with respect to the classification, for capital cost allowance purposes, of certain equipment used in it

Martin, J.:—The taxpayer plaintiff, Frank Grouchy, appeals the reassessment of his income for his 1981 and 1982 taxation years whereby certain income for those years, which had been claimed as being on capital account, was characterized by the Minister of

Mahoney, J.A.:—These appeals are from identical orders made by the Associate Chief Justice on applications of the respondent taxpayers, who claimed refunds of taxes they had not paid under Part VIII of the Income Tax Act. The reasons