Giles, A.S.P.:—The motion before me under Rule 324 is for an extension of time to file an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada. The decision of the Tax Court of Canada was signed September 3, 1991 and mailed September 18,

Teitelbaum, J.:—The statement of claim filed into the Federal Court Registry speaks of Mollenhauer Ltd. as the appellant, and Her Majesty the Queen as respondent, Mollenhauer Ltd. should be referred to as plaintiff and Her Majesty the Queen as defendant.

Reed, J.:—The question to be decided in this case is a very narrow one: was the notice of assessment which was sent to the defendant (respondent), B.M. Enterprises, by the plaintiff (appellant) pursuant to subsection 227(10) of the Income

Giles, A.S.P.:—The action which gave rise to the motions before me was commenced by a statement of claim in which Mr. and Mrs. Schmidt were joint plaintiffs. The Crown, citing L&M Wood Products Ltd., et al. v.

Heald, J.A.:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division, which dismissed the appeal of the appellant from the decision of Tax Court Judge Bonner which, in turn, dismissed the appellant’s appeal from assessments of income tax for the

Mahoney, J.A.:—In assessing the appellant's 1985 income tax return, the respondent disallowed its entire contribution to its Employee Stock Purchase Plan. I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of my brother Marceau herein and, while I

Strayer, J.:—1 originally conducted a trial under section 174 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act") for a determination of the following question put to the Court.

Cullen, J.:—This is an appeal from a reassessment of tax, dated March 27, 1986, in respect of the plaintiff's 1982 taxation year. By notice of reassessment the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") included the amount of $6,242,360.75, representing the

Jerome, A.C.J.:—This is an appeal by the defendant and a cross-appeal by the plaintiff, from the decision of the Associate Senior Prothonotary dated October 1, 1991, wherein it was ordered that the plaintiff and its representative being examined for discovery,

Giles, A.S.P.:—This motion brought in writing pursuant to Rule 324, seeks to strike out the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that the only appeal from an appeal to the Tax Court of Canada under the Informal Procedure is to the Federal Court