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

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,

l.:

Garland v. C.E.I.C., (1985) 63 N.R. 129, 23 D.L.R. (4th) 393;

McDonald J.A.:—These are appeals from a reported decision of the Trial Division ([1993] 1 C.T.C. 148, 93 D.T.C. 5067), which dismissed appeals from the reassessments of the appellant’s 1985 and 1986 income tax returns.