Taylor, T.CJ.:—These are appeals heard on common evidence in Toronto, Ontario on January 29, 30, 31 and February 1, 1991 against income tax assessments covering the taxation years 1979 through 1985 for each of the appellants. Before, during and after the

Beaubier, T.C.J.:—These appeals were heard, by consent, on common evidence at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on February 20 and 21, 1991. They pertain to the 1984, 1985 and 1986 taxation years for each of the appellants. In each year, the appellants were employed

Margeson, T.C.J.:—The present appeal concerns only the question of whether or not the appellant's chief source of income during the taxation years 1985 and 1986 was farming, or a combination of farming and some other source of income. If it is not,

Taylor, T.CJ.:—These are appeals heard in Regina, Saskatchewan, on September 27 and 28, 1990, against income tax assessments for the years 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987, which assessments were primarily based on the following assumptions:

Mogan, T.CJ.:— When filing her 1987 income tax return, the appellant claimed Ontario tax credits of $500. By notice of reassessment, she was allowed. an Ontario tax credit of only $42.20. She served a notice of objection but the respondent confirmed

Lamarre Proulx, T.CJ.:—This is a motion by the respondent asking the Court to dismiss the appeals by Rideau Arcades Ltd. and Arcade du Vieux Montréal Ltd. and to allow the appeal by Gary Yott, in accordance with the terms of an agreement

Denault, J.: —The garnishee has applied for revocation of judgment and is seeking to be relieved of its failure to make a declaration upon service of a seizure. The party seeking rescission argued that there was a postal delay, while the party subject

Rouleau, J.: —In this case the plaintiff appeals an assessment of the Minister of National Revenue wherein excise tax and federal sales tax was levied on cooking wine imported by the plaintiff during the years 1986 and 1987.

Jerome, A.CJ.:—The respondents' applications by way of originating notice of motion for a review, pursuant to subsection 225.2(8) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act"), of my order dated

Heald, J.A. (Hugessen and MacGuigan, JJ.A concurring):—We have not been persuaded that the learned trial judge committed any reviewable error herein. In our view, the facts at bar simply do not establish a borrowing by the taxpayer so as to permit