Simpson J.:—The plaintiffs McAllister Drilling Ltd. ("Drilling"), McAllister Holdings Ltd. ("Holdings") and McAllister Waterwells Ltd. ("Waterwells") appeal, pursuant to subsection 172(1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72,
Stone, J.A:—It is clear to the Court that the learned Tax Court of Canada Judge made no reviewable error in finding that the applicant’s income had been properly assessed for the taxation years 1982 to 1986 inclusive. However, it is conceded by
Muldoon J.:—The plaintiff, by amended statement of claim filed July 20, 1990, appeals from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada pronounced on April 10, 1990 [[1990] 2 C.T.C. 2001, 90 D.T.C. 1401] wherein Cal-Gas’ appeal from its reassessments for
Mckeown J.:—The Associate Senior Prothonotary did not permit the appellant (defendant) to withdraw an admission in its amended defence. Furthermore, the Associate Senior Prothonotary did not strike out the part of the reply of the respondent (plaintiff).
Strayer J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada dated August 30, 1983 ([1983] C.T.C. 2596, 83 D.T.C. 539. While this appeal was, of course, in the form of a trial de novo the basic facts are not
Muldoon J.:—The Crown appeals by way of proceedings de novo, and states its case in its amended statement of claim, to which the defendant responds with marvellous brevity, but fully in five paragraphs on one page and a half. Counsel
MacKay J.:—In these four actions, consolidated for trial together on similar facts and raising the same issues, the plaintiff appeals from assessments as modified by reassessments of income tax for the taxation years from 1978 to 1981. Each of the actions relates to a particular taxation year, T-2607-87 to 1978, T-2608-87 to 1979, T-2609-87 to 1980 and T-2610-87 to 1981.
Hugessen J.A.:—This appeal requires this Court to rexamine the precise scope and reach of the provisions relating to amalgamation found in section 87 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act")
Hugessen J.A.:— We have not been persuaded that the learned motions judge committed any reversable error or acted on any wrong principle in the exercise of his discretion to allow the plaintiffs’ case, difficult though it may prove to be, to
Linden J.A.:—The issue in this application for judicial review is whether wage loss replacement amounts received by the applicant in 1990 and 1991 were payable to him in respect of a loss in consequence of an event occurring before 1974. If so,
