Marceau, J.A.:— We are of the view that the order of the Associate Chief Justice, made on July 24,1990 on an application by the appellant for an order authorizing the Minister of National Revenue to take certain collection action against the

MacKay, J.: —This is an appeal by the plaintiff Her Majesty The Queen from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada, dated February 22, 1988, which allowed the defendant taxpayer's appeal from a notice of reassessment of income tax made by

Joyal, J.: —This is an appeal by the plaintiff, a company incorporated under the laws of British Columbia, from a reassessment for income tax purposes for the taxation year 1980. The plaintiff alleges that not only is the reassessment wrong on

Reed, J.:—The Minister of National Revenue seeks an order pursuant to subsection 231.3(6) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act") allowing him to retain documents seized from certain of

Teitelbaum, J.:—Counsel for the plaintiffs and defendant have made a request thai both cases be heard together on common evidence. I granted this request and the herein judgment shall apply to both files.

Teitelbaum, J.:—The plaintiff, Tricolor Prolab Ltd., formerly known as Tricolor Prolab (1979) Ltd., is appealing, by means of a direct action, the assessment issued by the Minister of National Revenue dated February 6, 1987 requiring the payment of $26,924.39

Stratton, J.A.: — The issue in these two appeals involves the determination of entitlement to certain funds wherein Revenue Canada is the competing creditor in the first named action against the appellant, Lloyds Bank Canada ("Lloyds") and in the

McDonald, J.:—In my previous reasons for judgment dated January 19, 1989, ([1989] 1 C.T.C. 401; 89 D.T.C. 5279) I held that, under subsection 224(1.2) and (1.3) of the Income Tax Act, Revenue Canada's claim overrides the existing

Baudouin, J.: —

Muldoon, J.:—This is the defendant's application to compel answers and compliance with undertakings on discovery, as well as production of documents, pursuant to Rules 455(18) and 455(2). The individual being questioned to provide answers for the plaintiff has been