Macdonald, C.J.:—The appellant appeals his conviction and sentence on two charges under the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72,

Brockenshire, J.:—This was a motion brought by counsel for the accused in this income tax prosecution as if at the commencement of trial, to me as if I was the trial judge with the consent of the accused and the Crown. The accused

Chadwick, J.:—The applicant company was in the construction business and in particular was involved in the removal of asbestos products from various commercial buildings across Canada.

Marceau, J.A.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Minister of National Revenue rejecting the application by the Canada UNI Association to be granted the status of "charity" under paragraph 149.1(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C.

Joyal, J.:—This is an appeal by way of statement of claim pursuant to subsection 172(2) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act") from two notices of reassessment, dated September

Strayer, J.:—The plaintiff appeals against a reassessment against her of income taxes owed by her father Peter Bodnarchuk in respect of his 1978-81 taxation years. This assessment was made against her pursuant to subsection 160(1) of the Income

Rothstein, J.:—This case involves whether or not the replacement property rules under section 44 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act"), apply to a certain disposition of real property in

Jerome, A.C.J.:—This is an application for a writ of certiorari setting aside a requirement to pay issued by the Minister of National Revenue to the applicant's bank; a declaratory order directing the Minister of National Revenue to repay to

Rouleau, J.:—The plaintiff brings this action seeking to set aside a demand by Revenue Canada that he reimburse the amount of a refund cheque issued to him by the Department in February of 1986. The instrument was forwarded to the taxpayer’s

Giles, A.S.P.:—The motion before me sought. an order that all future motions in this action be heard in Ottawa. An earlier motion seeking an order that the trial be held in Ottawa was dismissed as premature. The following additional facts were