Beaubier J.T.C.C.: — This matter was heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick on February 14, 1996. The Appellant was the only witness.

Bowman J.T.C.C.: — These are appeals instituted from the assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the years 1989 and 1990. The point at issue concerns the appellant’s right to deduct the amounts of $9,412 in 1989

Mogan J.T.C.C.: — The Appellant and Julia Denelzen (“Julia”) were married in 1960. They separated in 1984 and Julia commenced divorce proceedings in 1985. They each obtained independent legal advice. The Appellant retained John G. Walsh and Julia retained

Margeson J.T.C.C.: — The question for the Court is whether or not the Appellant, Zale Chapel, is entitled to a share of the losses claimed in the years 1989 and 1990, which losses allegedly were suffered by him as a limited partner

Taylor J.T.C.C.: — These are appeals heard on common evidence by agreement of the parties, at Toronto, Ontario on December 12, 1996 against income tax assessments for the year 1991 in the Abbey matter, and 1989 and 1992 in the Ovens

Bowman J.T.C.C.: — This appeal is from an assessment for the appellant’s 1989 taxation year. The issue is whether a gain realized by her on the sale of a property owned by her at 142 Mary Street in Thorold South, Ontario, is on

Bowman J.T.C.C.: — These appeals are from assessments for the appellant’s 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 taxation years. All issues for all four years are settled with the exception of a loss of $143,681.18 Cdn or $101,901.55 US claimed by the

Sarchuk J.T.C.C.: - This is an appeal by Will-Kare Paving & Contracting Limited from assessments of tax with respect to its 1988, 1989 and 1990 taxation years.

Bowman J.T.C.C.: — The issue in this appeal, from the appellant’s 1993 taxation year, is whether the sum of $5,941 is income of the appellant as a retiring allowance as defined in section 248 of the Income Tax Act.

Taylor J.T.C.C.: — These appeals heard in Toronto, Ontario on February 14, 1996, were against assessments under the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) in which the Respondent included in income amounts of $9,197.00, $10,877.54 and