DéCary J.A. (Hugessen and Létourneau, JJ.A., concurring:— The appellant is in reality asking the Court to say that when the Supreme Court of Canada gave its interpretation of subsection 31 (I) [1] (then 13(1)) of
Giles A.S.P.:-The motion before me seeks an order striking out the affidavit of Richard Catahan, filed with the applicant’s supplementary application record. The proceedings on this file are for judicial review and Part V.I of the Federal Court Rules, among
MacKay J.:—These reasons concern judgment reached in regard to the four actions set out in the styles of cause which, at the request and on consent of counsel for the parties, were tried on common evidence. Each action is an appeal from a decision of Goetz J. of the Tax Court of Canada, whereby he dismissed the appeal of each taxpayer against an assessment of income tax by the Minister of National Revenue. The Tax Court decisions in relation to these appeals are reported (See: Small et al. v. M.N.R., [1990] 2 C.T.C. 2286, 89 D.T.C.
Hugessen J.:-The two applicants, the corporations "Corporation de recherche Progimed" and "Corporation de recherche Viau", are seeking leave to intervene in this case, which is an appeal brought by the appellant from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada
McDonald J.A.:—We are all of the view that the Tax Court judge failed to apply the plain and ordinary language of paragraph 118(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act") as
Cullen J .:-This is an action by the plaintiff taxpayer Dr. George Stecko ("the plaintiff" or "the taxpayer"), an orthopaedic surgeon, arising out of reassessments by the defendant Minister of National Revenue ("the defendant" or "the Minister") for the 1983
Gibson J.:-The plaintiff appeals from a decision of the Minister of National Revenue which restricted the farm losses the plaintiff can deduct from his income for the 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980 taxation years to $5,000 per year. For the years in
Gonthier J.:-The issue in this case is whether the appellant, Partagée Inc. ("Partagée"), can benefit from the tax exemptions provided for in subsections 204(14) and 236(1.1) of the Act respecting Municipal Taxation, R.S.Q., c. F-2.1 ("AMT"), relating to real estate and business tax respectively. In this Court two main questions were raised: (1) What are the principles that should guide the courts in interpreting tax legislation?
Gonthier J.:-This case raises the question of whether the appellants, the Conseil de la santé et des services sociaux de la région de Montréal métropolitain ("Regional Council") and the Buanderie centrale de Montréal Inc. ("Buanderie"), may respectively benefit from the tax exemptions provided for in subsections 204(14) and 236(1.1) of the Act respecting Municipal Taxation, R.S.Q., c. F-2.1 ("AMT"), regarding real estate and business tax.
Rothstein J.:-There are three applications by the plaintiff before the Court. The first is to strike out the statement of defence or alternatively for particulars and for production of copies of all the documents referred to in the statement of defence. The
