Bowman J.T.C.C.:-These appeals are from reassessments for the taxation years 1989, 1990 and 1991 and involve subsection 31(1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63). By those assessments the Minister of
Beaubier J.T.C.C.:-These matters were heard together on common evidence pursuant to the General Procedure of this Court at Victoria, British Columbia on September 19, 1995. At the opening of the hearing the appeal of Wescan Hotel Corporation Ltd. was withdrawn,
Weston J.T.C.C.: — At issue in this appeal is whether or not interest on a payment of compensation for the expropriation of farmland should be characterized as farming income for the purpose of computing income under the Income Tax Act. The amount of interest in question is $13,757.74.
Décary J.A. (Hugesson and Robertson, J J. A., concurring): — This application for judicial review of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada raises the question, once again, of the applicability and effect of subsection
Gonthier J.T.C.C.: —
La Forest J. (orally): It will not be necessary to hear from you Ms. Burns. The Court is ready to give judgment and I will ask Mr. Justice lacobucci to deliver the judgment of the Court.
Cullen J.: This is an action by the plaintiff taxpayer, Liampat Holdings Ltd. (“the plaintiff’ or “the taxpayer”), arising out of reassessments by the defendant Minister of National Revenue (“the defendant” or “the Minister”) for the 1981 and 1982 taxation
Hargrave P. — I initially dealt with this motion in writing pursuant to Rule 324, to strike out the action for want of prosecution, by granting that relief to the defendant on June 23, 1995, the plaintiff filing no material. Subsequently,
Denault J.: — In the Court’s opinion, there is a serious question to be tried in the appeal filed against the orders of July 25 and 28, 1995. It appears that the judge simply quashed the demands for payment sent by the Department of National Revenue even though the motion before the judge, which was made by Bâtiment Fafard International Inc., asked only for an interim order to inform those concerned that they were not required to pay.
La Forest J.: - This appeal involves the issue whether compensation received by an “employee” from his “employer” pursuant to a settlement regarding liability for the employer’s unilateral decision to cancel a contract of employment before the employee
