Hugessen, J.A.:—We are not satisfied that the trial judge erred in law. The provisions (now repealed) of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, which were in issue are clear and unambiguous; the manner in which they were
Pinard, J.:—This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Minister of National Revenue denying the applicants’ request pursuant to subsection 220(3.1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, C. 63) (the "Act") for the waiver of interest. The applicants specifically request: (a) a writ of certiorari, to quash and/or set aside the Minister’s decision: and
Wetston J.:—This is an appeal in the form of an action pursuant to subsections 172(2) and 175(3) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the “Act’’), brought by the taxpayer Ross J.
Linden, J.A. (Mahoney, MacGuigan, JJ.A., concurring):— This is an application for judicial review of a decision of Judge Taylor of the Tax Court of Canada in which it was held that a monthly housing subsidy paid to the respondent in
Mahoney, J.A.:— This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada given in an appeal by the applicant from her 1990 and 1991 income tax assessments. Her income for the years in issue consisted entirely of
Marceau, J.A. (Desjardins and Létourneau, JJ.A., concurring):— This appeal is from a judgment of the Trial Division ([1991] 2 C.T.C. 214, 91 D.T.C. 5535), rendered pursuant to the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148
Hugessen, J.A. (Pratte, J.A., concurring):— This is an application for judicial review of a reported decision of the Tax Court of Canada ([1992] 2 C.T.C. 2497, 92 D.T.C. 2098) dismissing the applicant's appeal from her 1989 tax assessment.
Isaacs, C.J.:—In this section 28 application, the applicant has asked this Court to review and set aside a decision of the Tax Court pronounced under the informal procedure in subsection 18.15(4) of the Tax Court of Canada Act,
Platana, J.:—This is an application pursuant to section 232 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act"), to determine whether certain documents seized from the offices of Walter C. Wieckowski, a
Stone, J.A.:— We have not been persuaded that any reviewable error has been made by the learned Tax Court judge in coming to his judgment of March 16, 1993, whereby the applicant’s appeal from an assessment to tax for the taxation year 1988
