MacKay, J.: —In this action the plaintiff, Mary Edwardes, appeals, pursuant to subsection 172(1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the 'Act") as that section applied at the relevant time,

Stone, J.A. [Orally]:—The applicant seeks to set aside an order of the Tax Court of Canada made on June 13, 1990 whereby it was determined that the applicant did not require an order extending time wherein to institute an appeal with respect

Reed, J.:—The issue in this case involves the proper interpretation of subparagraph 53(2)(c)(v) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act") and whether it is applicable to the facts of this

Jerome, A.C.J. [Orally]:—I indicated yesterday that I would deliver judgment in this matter and I am now prepared to do so. In my view, this appeal must be dismissed. There are three or four reasons. The first and foremost is that, in my

Martin, J.:—The plaintiff, Rolls-Royce (Canada) Limited, is the corporation resulting from the merger of Rolls-Royce (Canada) Limited and Bristol Aero Industries (Mtl) Limited on June 16, 1979.

Décary, J.A. (Heald and Linden, JJ.A, concurring):—The appellant has been in the business of manufacturing pre-cast concrete septic tanks since June 1970. From the time it commencée! doing business, the appellant has had a dispute

Reed, J. [Orally]: —1 do not think it necessary to review in any extensive way the facts in this case. Agreed statements of facts have been filed which speak for themselves. It suffices to note that it was agreed that Jet A-1 Fuel is: (a)

Linden, J:—These are appeals from two judgments of the Trial Division of this Court, dated March 27, 1987 dismissing appeals from decisions of the Tax Court of Canada dated October 30, 1984, which dealt with the taxes payable by the appellants in

Muldoon, Jj. [Orally]: —In the case of Robert D. Blake v. Canada, T-1424-84. This is a rather old case, as may be noted from its suit number in 1984, and it is old especially so, when one recalls that the

Reed, J.:—The defendant brings a motion to require the plaintiff to produce an officer to be examined for discovery. The dispute between the parties arises out of uncertainty as to the status of information obtained as a result of an examination for