Hugessen J.A.:—This section 28 application seeks to review a decision of the Tax Court of Canada which upheld the Minister’s decision not to allow the applicant to deduct the sum of $18,200 paid in 1988 by the applicant to his separated spouse. That
Hugessen J.A. (Desjardins and McDonald, J J. A., concurring) :-This is a section 28 application to review and set aside a decision of the Tax Court of Canada by which the taxpayer’s application to extend time for
Hargrave, P.:—This is a motion dealt with in writing pursuant to Rule 324. It arises out of a challenge to a bailiff’s right to poundage where goods may have been seized under a writ of execution, but not realized upon, by reason of a
Pratte J.A. (Strayer J.A. and Chevalier D.J., concurring:-We do not need to hear you, Ms. Phillips.
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
