Jerome, A.C.J.:—This action by way of appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada came on for hearing at Toronto, Ontario, on January 24 and 25, 1990. The disputed assessments concern the plaintiff's 1981 and 1982 taxation years and arise

Stone, J.A.: —This is an appeal from the judgment of Muldoon, J. rendered September 21, 1984, whereby the appellant's appeal from the decision of the Tax Review Board with respect to reassessments of income tax for the taxation years 1974,1975

Wilson, J.: —This appeal raises the question of the constitutional validity of subsection 231(3) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, in light of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights

MacGuigan, J.A.:—The neat question in this case is whether an income tax reassessment is invalid because it is issued in the name of a company which has already amalgamated with other companies to form a new corporation.

Martin, J.:—The defendant taxpayer claims as a moving expense under the provisions of paragraph 62(3)(e) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, as amended by S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, s. 1, the lump sum payment of $5,811.60 paid

Denault, J.: —[Translation.] The plaintiff is seeking rescission of a notice of reassessment issued against her by Revenue Canada, Taxation, in the amount of $98,922.53 for the 1982 taxation year.

Rouleau, J.:—The plaintiff taxpayer, an accountant by profession, appeals the decision of the Tax Court of Canada, who upheld certain reassessments by the Minister of National Revenue for the 1978-79-80 taxation years, restricting the taxpayer's deductible losses to

Collier, J.:—The plaintiff is a Saskatchewan corporation and carries on business in that province. It appeals reassessments, by the Minister of National Revenue, of its income for the 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985 taxation years. In its returns for those

Collier, J.: —This is an appeal by the plaintiff company against reassessment by the Minister of National Revenue of its 1977 income tax. The plaintiff had received a share of profits from the sale of two large rental apartment units in

Jerome, J.:—This motion for an order compelling the respondent (defendant) to produce certain documents and reattend to be examined on their contents, came on for hearing at Edmonton, Alberta on December 1, 1989. On January 1, 1990 I dismissed the motion