Stone J.A.:— This section 28 application attacks a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada of January 30, 1995.

Robertson J.A.: - This is an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division involving the taxation of moneys received by the appellant (the “taxpayer”) following an expropriation of her lands. Two issues arise for our consideration. One focuses on

Linden J.A.: — The issue in this appeal is whether certain vitamin, mineral and fibre products marketed and sold by Shaklee Canada Inc. are exempt from taxation under the Excise Tax Act as being “food for consumption”. The

Linden J.A.: — This appeal raises the same issues of law as are raised in Court File No. A-612-93. A copy of the reasons for judgment in that file, as annexed, shall constitute the reasons for judgment in this court file.

Stone J.A.: — By an order of September 29, 1992, the Trial Division dismissed the appellant’s application under section 179 of the Income Tax Act R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, as amended by S.C. 1985, c. 45, to hold proceedings in

Rothstein J.: —

Introduction

This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada (Sarchuk J.T.C.C.) dated December 3, 1990 dismissing the plaintiffs appeal.

Linden J.A.:—The sole issue raised in these five cases before this Court is whether a mortgage interest subsidy received by a taxpayer, after a relocation to a more expensive housing area, is taxable under either paragraph 6(1 )(a) or section 80.4 of

McKeown J.: — The plaintiff, Mr. Del Zotto, brings two motions. One is to amend the statement of claim pursuant to Rule 420. The second is to require the defendant to perform a new search for documents which may be relevant to

Harper J.-

Wood J.—

I.