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.
Bowman J.T.C.C.:—These appeals, from assessments for the 1990, 1991 and 1992 taxation years, were heard together. They involve a very narrow issue having to do with the deduction of interest. The facts are simple and are not disputed.
Hargrave P.— This motion, in writing pursuant to Rule 324, is brought by the Crown to strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim for want of prosecution or, alternatively, by reason of the failure of the plaintiff to provide an affidavit of
Nadon J.:— The question is as to the validity of a seizure in execution carried out on the movable property found in the premises of a Montréal restaurant, namely the Kozak restaurant ("the restaurant") located at 250 rue Beaubien est.
Giles A.S.P.:— These proceedings purport to have been commenced by an originating notice of motion and seek an order in the nature of mandamus. The motion before me is an interlocutory motion seeking to strike the originating notice of
Teitelbaum J.:— This is an appeal from a reassessment of income tax wherein the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) disallowed certain expenses related to initial costs and property taxes of Property Investment Project 79-1, Cambridge Place, an investment
Hugessen J.A. (DéCary J.A., Chevalier D.J. concurring)— We are all of the view that the learned Tax Court Judge asked himself the right question when he said the real question in the present case is whether there was
