Denault, J.:—The opposant, the defendant's wife [1] , is opposing a seizure of immovables by the Minister of National Revenue against the defendant pur- suant to the filing of a certificate on September 28, 1983 ordering him to pay

Robins, Griffiths, Osborne, JJ.A.: — The question in this appeal is whether the factual circumstances are such as to provide a valid basis in law for permitting the appellant to withdraw his guilty plea to the charge of income tax

Muldoon, J.:—In this case are involved very serious considerations about the nature of Canada and whether the State is to be characterized legally and constitutionally as atheistic, secular or theocratic. In fact, the nature of the present proceeding is the

Denault, J::—This is an appeal by the Minister of National Revenue from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada, as well as a cross appeal by the taxpayer. It involves two transactions, the first resulted in the defendant's wife acquiring shares

Finch, J.: —

Giles, A.S.P.:—The motion before me was to strike the statement of claim of Gerard O'Sullivan. In his action the plaintiff is apparently appealing a decision of the Tax Court of Canada to claim: (a) a reduction of his income tax for the year

Cullen, J.:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada dismissing the plaintiff's appeal from income tax assessments for the 1977 to 1979 taxation years. The appeal concerns various low-interest mortgages taken back by the plaintiff

Reed, J.:—This is an appeal, by four partners, of assessments by the Minister of National Revenue classifying profit arising from the sale of certain lands as business income and not a capital gain.

Joyal, J.:—The defendants have brought this motion pursuant to Rule 419 of the Federal Court Rules to have the statement of claim in the present action struck out, on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action.

Hugessen, J.A.: —Despite the best efforts of counsel for the appellant we can see no basis for disagreeing with McNair, J.'s very thorough reasons for judgment. He found the appellant's "ore haulers" to be "vehicles" within the intendment of