Mcarthur J.T.C.C.:— This appeal was heard in London, Ontario, on June 17, 1994, in accordance with the informal procedure of this Court relating to the appellant’s 1988 and 1989 taxation years.

Lamarre Proulx J.T.C.C.:—These appeals were heard on common evidence pursuant to the informal procedure and concerned the 1990 and 1991 taxation years. The only point that remains at issue between the parties in the instant appeals is whether the

Beaubier J.T.C.C.:— These appeals pursuant to the General Procedure of this Court were tried together on common evidence at Victoria, British Columbia on April 5 to 9, inclusive, 1994.

Mogan J.T.C.C. (orally):— This is an appeal in respect of the 1989 and 1990 taxation years. There are two issues before the Court. The first issue is whether a certain amount received by the appellant with respect to the last payroll period for

Hamlyn J.T.C.C.:— This is an appeal for the 1992 taxation year heard under the informal procedure.

Kempo J.T.C.C. (orally):— These informal procedure appeals of Sherilynn Solnicka and Karel Solnicka were, on consent application, joined and heard on common evidence. This was appropriate as all of the issues arose out of a residential rental property

Teskey J.T.C.C. (orally):— The appellant elected to have his appeal against an assessment for 1991 heard pursuant to the informal procedure.

Sarchuk J.T.C.C.:— This is an appeal by Vander Nurseries Inc. from assessments of tax by virtue of which the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) revised the taxable income of the appellant for its 1986,1987 and 1988 taxation years by disallowing interest

Sobier J.T.C.C.:—The taxpayer is appealing the assessment by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") for her 1988 taxation year. The appeal concerns late filing penalties and arrears interest. The background facts to the appeal are as follows.

Sobier J.T.C.C.:—The appellant appeals from the assessment by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister"), for his 1991 taxation year, whereby the Minister denied the deduction by the appellant of an allowable business investment loss ("ABIL") of $33,452.73