Heald, J.:—We are in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Tax Court judge for dismissing the taxpayer’s appeal. We think that he correctly applied the provisions of paragraph 227.1(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C.
Strayer, J.:—I ordered the adjournment sine die of the trial set for June 8 and 9, 1992, granted at the request of the plaintiff and with the consent of the defendant. However, I asked counsel for the plaintiff to appear before
Heald, J.A.:—The Court is seized with two applications for reconsideration of the reasons for judgment issued in this matter on October 16, 1991. The Court, in these reasons, had asked the appellant, in accordance with Rule 337(2)(b) of the Federal Court
Isaac, C.J.:—This is a section 28 application to review and set aside a decision of the Tax Court made on June 7, 1990. The issue before the learned Tax Court judge on the appeal from the assessment before him was whether some or all
Strayer, J.:—
Marceau, J.A.:—This appeal is from a judgment of the Trial Division which vacated an assessment made by the Minister of National Revenue for the 1972 taxation year of the late Nathan Cesser, whose rights are exercised here by his widow in her capacity as
Pratte, J.A.:—This is an appeal from the Trial Division dismissing a motion made by the appellant, defendant in the Court below, to strike out the respondents' (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) statement of claim under Rule 419 of the Rules
Pinard, J:—
This motion is for an order that:
Mahoney, J.A. (Stone, J.A., concurring):—This appeal, from a reported decision of the Trial Division ([1988] 2 C.T.C. 349, 88 D.T.C. 6505), is concerned with whether $1,328,000, being business interruption insurance proceeds, is exempt from income tax
MacGuigan, J.A.:—Having correctly decided that the farming enterprise in the case at bar could reasonably be expected to be a source of income, the trial judge in our opinion incorrectly transformed that conclusion into one that the respondent's farming income
