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
Reed J.:—The issue in this case is whether the plaintiff is required to pay interest on taxes calculated to be payable with respect to a given year, as a result of a capital gain in that year, when the tax payable becomes zero as the
Simpson J.:-This case concerns the deductibility of an air conditioner as a medical expense. To qualify for the deduction under the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970- 71-72, c. 63) (the ’’Act”), the air conditioner
Dubé J.:-This application is for an order quashing a demand issued by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") pursuant to section 231.2 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act")
Isaac C.J.:-We are all of the view that there was evidence to support the finding of the learned trial judge that the appellant did not make a reasonable attempt to correctly determine its capital surplus on hand as required by subsection 184(3.1) of
Hugessen J.A. (DéCary and McDonald, JJ.A., concurring:—We are all of the view that this appeal from a judgment of Reed J. dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Senior Prothonotary striking out the statement of claim
Stone J.A.:-The issue in this appeal involves the construction of certain provisions of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) (the "Act"), and is concerned with whether the learned motions judge erred in upholding a
