Bélanger, Sr., O.C.J.:—The accused is charged with wilful evasion of federal income taxes in the amount of $111,657.31 by understating his income in his returns for the taxation years 1984/ 85/ 86 and'87. That charge is contained in one count
Twaddle, J.A. (Philp, J.A. concurring):—This case involves the failure of an employer to remit to Her Majesty the Queen moneys deducted from employee's wages on account of income tax, Canada pension plan contributions and unemployment insurance premiums.
De Graves, J.:—This is an application by Ernst & Young Inc., the receiver and manager of the defendant, for direction and advice as to disposition of sale proceeds and of certain other funds in the hands of the receiver and manager.
Strayer, J.:—
At the request of counsel I ordered that these two cases be heard together on common evidence.
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
