Tremblay, T.C.J. [Translation]:—This appeal was heard in Québec, Québec.

Sarchuk, T.C.J.:—The appeal of Badshah B. Husain (Husain) is from an assessment in respect of her 1984 taxation year. This assessment was made on the basis that Husain received interest in the amount of $26,650 during the year which was not

Sarchuk, T.C.J.:—The appeals of Seaway-Levy Technical & Financial Ltd. (Seaway) are from reassessments of tax with respect to its 1981, 1982 and 1983 taxation years. The issue before me arises in the following manner.

Brulé, T.C.J.:—Two issues are involved in this appeal by the appellants respecting their 1982 taxation years. The first is whether losses realized by the appellants are business losses or allowable business investment losses. The second is whether interest expenses

Brulé, T.C.J.:—These appeals were heard on common evidence and concern the taxation years 1984, 1985 and 1987 for Mayon Investments Inc. (Mayon") and 1984 and 1985 for Temax Investments Inc. CTemax"). Both companies were reassessed by Revenue Canada treating

Christie, A.C.J.T.C.:—This appeal relates to the appellant's 1987 taxation year. At the times relevant to this appeal he was employed by SHL Systemhouse Inc. "Systemhouse"). In his return of income for that year he deducted $18,460 as an allowable capital

Tremblay, T.C.J. [Translation]:—This appeal was heard on April 26, 1989 in the City of Montréal, Québec and the last argument was received on September 5, 1989.

Mogan, T.C.J.:—At the conclusion of the hearing of this appeal at Ottawa on October 9, 1990, I delivered oral reasons for judgment which, in substance, dismissed the appeal. I have reconsidered my position on one of the matters in dispute and, in

Tremblay, T.C.J. [Translation]:—This appeal was heard on July 27, 1990, in Québec, Québec.

Dussault, T.C.J.:—This is an appeal against an assessment by the respondent disallowing the tax credit for tuition fees claimed by the appellant for his 1988 taxation year. The reason for disallowing the tax credit is that the appellant did not satisfy the requirements