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
Rouleau J.: — The Department of National Revenue is claiming a substantial sum from Coffrages Universel Ltée for unpaid taxes. After the Federal Court issued a writ of fieri facias, some of that company’s assets were seized in
Robertson J.A.: — The Tax Court Judge, Christie A.C.J.T.C. held that the respective appellants did not hold their condominium for the purpose of producing income and, therefore, are not entitled to deduct a “terminal loss” stemming from its ultimate
DéCary J. (Stone and McDonald, J J. A., concurring): — These are appeals and cross-appeals from three judgments of the Trial Division dated 2 October 1994 which disposed of Canadian Reynolds Metals Company Limited
Denault J.: — The issue to be decided in this case is whether the dissolution of the House of July 9, 1984 and the consequent prorogation of all bills not yet adopted had the effect, in relation to tenders filed after that date,
Cullen J.: — This is an application for judicial review, pursuant to section 18.1 of the Federal Court Act, of a decision of Brian Dawe, Director, Sudbury taxation centre, dated May 16, 1995, whereby Mr. Dawe refused to
Cullen J.: — This is a motion by the plaintiff under Rule 324 to reconsider the terms of the pronouncement of my judgement in this matter, dated November 30, 1995. Specifically, the plaintiff requested that I address the issue of whether
Schwartz J.: -
The evidence in this prosecution underscores the sometimes narrow line which separates aggressive tax avoidance planning and fraudulent activity resulting in tax evasion.
