Lamarre Proulx J.T.C.C.: — The appellant is appealing an assessment by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”). That assessment, bearing number 8332 and postmarked June 7, 1989, was made by the Minister pursuant to section 160 of the

O’Connor J.T.C.C.: — These appeals were heard in Toronto, Ontario on December 12 and 13, 1995 pursuant to the General Procedure of this Court. They relate to the Appellant’s taxation years 1990 and 1991.

O’Connor J.T.C.C.: — These appeals were heard on common evidence in Toronto, Ontario on October 23, 1995 pursuant to the Informal Procedure of this Court.

Sarchuk J.T.C.C.: — William J. Brown appeals from assessments of tax with respect to his 1989, 1990 and 1991 taxation years. In computing his income for those years the Appellant deducted the amounts of $68,039.88, $119,111.63 and $65,012.01 respectively

Mogan J.T.C.C.: — In November 1987, the Appellant agreed to sell to Pan West Financial Inc. for $750,000 a 13-acre portion of Lot 7 (a parcel of land which will be described in greater detail below) in Langley, B.C. On April 29,

Bowman J.T.C.C. (orally): — I think I’m in a position to render judgment. This is an appeal from reassessments for 1992 and 1993 of the Appellant, in which she was denied the disability tax credit provided under Section 118.3 of the

Lamarre J.T.C.C.: — This is an appeal under the informal procedure against an assessment issued by the Minister of National Revenue (hereinafter “the Minister”) in respect of the appellant’s 1990 taxation year. In computing his income, the appellant reported

Hunter J.: — The taxpayer, Marie Steele (“Steele”) applies for a review of the jeopardy order obtained by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) on October 24, 1995. The Minister obtained the order pursuant to subsection 225.2(2) of the

Nadon J.: — By application the Crown in right of Canada is asking this Court to convict Bertrand Fortin (“Mr. Fortin”) of contempt of court.

The relevant facts are as follows.

John A. Hargrave Prothonotary: — The defendant seeks to have this action, commenced in march of 1987, dismissed for want or prosecution. There is no issue as to the test to be applied: it is the three-part test set out by