Tremblay, T.C.C.J.:—

1. Points at issue

In this appeal, there are five (5) possible points at issue.

Sobier, T.C.C.J.:—The appellant appeals from the assessment by the respondent with respect to the appellants 1984 taxation year whereby the respondent included as ordinary income the amount of $156,853 being the appellant's share of profit earned from the sale

Lambert, J. (Carrothers, J. concurring):—There are two principal issues in this appeal: the first relates to the validity and priority of a seizure and sale of property by a deputy sheriff acting on a writ of fieri facias

Giles, A.S.P.:—In April 1989 I ordered Mr. Giagnocavo struck from the claim and provided time within which Mrs. Giagnocavo might file an amended claim. Notice of an appeal of my order was filed. The appeal from my order has been adjourned from

Rothstein, J.:— This is a motion by the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue for an order directing the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce to deliver up to the sheriff of the Winnipeg Judicial District the

McGillis, J.:— In the taxation years 1977, 1978 and 1979, Mr. Bertrand claimed deductions from income for farm losses in the amounts of $20,650.39, $30,967 and $47,552 respectively. The Minister of National Revenue assessed Mr. Bertrand and, pursuant to

Pratte, J.A.:—This is a motion to quash an application for review brought under section 28 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 against an order of the Tax Court of Canada setting November 23, 1992, as the date on

Giles, A.S.P.:— Before me under Rule 324 is a motion for judgment against the Crown in default of defence. The statement of claim was filed in the Toronto Local Office of the Registry of the Court on August 7, 1992. It appears

Strayer, J.:—This is an appeal by Her Majesty the Queen of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada mailed on March 7, 1989 in which the Tax Court held that the whole of an 8.99 acre property upon which the plaintiff had his residence,

Hugessen, J.A.:—We are all in general agreement with the reasons of McNair, J. in the Trial Division. The decision of the respondent, the Minister of Communications, to revoke a” certification" of a“ certified production” previously given under subsection 1104