Cullen, J.:—Once again this Court and counsel for the defendants are faced with an unenviable situation—a plaintiff not represented by counsel although he did indicate he had received some direction and advice from a lawyer. The pace of the trial was inhibited by

Reed, J.:—The main issue in this case is the proper interpretation of an amendment made to paragraph 12(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 140, subsection 4(1) and whether that amendment is relevant to the

Jerome, A.C.J.:—This matter came on for hearing on September 7, 1989, in Edmonton, Alberta. In due course, the decision of Cassidy's Ltd. v. M.N.R., [1990] 1 C.T.C. 2043; 89 D.T.C. 686 came to my attention. It

Stone, J.A.:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division rendered on December 6, 1988, [1989] 1 C.T.C. 153; 89 D.T.C. 5044] wherein an application for relief under section 18 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.

Cullen, J.:—This case, on appeal from the Tax Court of Canada, concerns whether the profit realized by the plaintiff/appellant in its 1976 taxation year on the sale of certain Alberta farmland constitutes a capital gain or income from business or property.

Giles, A.S.P.:—A motion is before me under Rule 324 filed on behalf of the Crown for dismissal of an income tax appeal for want of prosecution. It is apparent from the file that the plaintiff acts for himself and has been conducting his case by

Pratte, J.A.:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division (Rouleau, J.) allowing an appeal by Her Majesty from a decision of the Tax Review Board relating to a reassessment of the appellant's income tax for the 1978 taxation year.