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

Strayer, J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada of June 11, 1990 with respect to the 1984, 1985 and 1986 taxation years of the plaintiff. In that decision the Tax Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against

McGillis, J. (orally):—The defendant, Her Majesty The Queen, has brought a motion to strike out the statement of claim filed by James Weiten, on the basis that he does not have standing to bring the action, or alternatively, that no reasonable

Hugessen, J.A.:—This is an appeal from an order of the Tax Court of Canada dismissing the appellants application to extend the time for filing the reply to the notice of appeal. Rule 44 of the Rules of the Tax Court read at the relevant

Hugessen J.A. (orally):—The applicant has satisfied me as to all three branches of the test in Attorney General (Manitoba) v. Metropolitan Stores, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110, 38 D.L.R. (4th) 321. The application is not