McGills, J.:—

Dubé, J.:— This is a motion to strike certain paragraphs from the statement of claim of the plaintiff ("Ludco") on the ground that these parts of the pleading disclose no reasonable cause of action (Rule 419(1)(a)), they are immaterial or redundant

MaGuigan, J.A.:—We have not been persuaded that the Tax Court judge committed any reviewable error. It may well be, as the applicant alleged before us, that evidence could have been presented which would have disproved the assumptions of Revenue Canada,

Mahoney, J.A.:—This application for judicial review and a parallel one by the applicant's wife, file A-984-92, are concerned with appeals against their 1986 and 1987 income tax assessments dealt with together by the Tax Court of Canada under its informal

Rothstein, J.:—This case comes to this Court by way of appeal from the Tax Court of Canada. By decision dated May 19, 1992, Sarchuk, J.T.C.C. found in favour of the defendant and the plaintiff appeals that decision.

Pinard, J.:—By her application for judicial review the applicant is seeking to set aside a decision made on October 16, 1992 by Kal Malhotra, Chief of Appeals, Revenue Canada, in order to vacate in part only, and not entirely, the interest on

Isaac, C.J.:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division, pronounced February 20,1992, dismissing the appellant's appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court which had upheld assessments by the respondent Minister of income taxes and interest payable

Cullen, J.:—This motion, made pursuant to Rule 324, is for an extension of time to file a statement of claim in order to appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada (Hagedorn v. Canada, [1993] 2 C.T.C. 3141. The

Rouleau, J.:—The plaintiffs Can-Am Realty Ltd. and Edward Podavin appeal from reassessments by the Minister of National Revenue with respect to their 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 taxation years. The Minister claims the plaintiff Can- Am Realty failed to report

Heald J.A. (Linden and Gray, JJ.A., concurring):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division [Scott v. Canada, [1991] 1 C.T.C. 395, 91 D.T.C. 5268] wherein the appellant’s action to set aside the