CAMPBELL, C.J.—The respondent was convicted before Stipendiary Magistrate Martin on a charge of making a false statement in delivering an income tax return (1942, T-1, General). The sentence imposed was $65 and costs, and the object of the Crown’s appeal is to

THORSON, J.—The issue in this appeal depends upon the construction of section 5(b) of the Income War Tax Act, R.S.C. 1927, chap. 97. In September, 1936, the appellant purchased property in the City of Toronto on which there was an

W. B. Scorr, K.C., P.M.—Each of the defendants is charged that he did on or before April 30, 1941, make, assent and acquiesce in the making of a false or deceptive statement in a. return filed by him for income tax for the year ending December

Farris, C.J.:—In this matter Graham was operating a logging operation in British Columbia in the year 1943, during which time he deducted from his employees an amount of approximately $1,700.00, but did not keep the money so deducted separate and apart from

RAND J.:—This is an information brought to recover sales taxes claimed in respect of a contract of sale between the respondent as seller and the Lake Sulphite Pulp Co. Ltd. as purchaser of an apparatus known as a pulp drying machine. The machine was

BOND, ACTING C.J.:—The plaintiff seeks to have declared ultra vires a tax for the year 1943 so far as it purports to impose a business tax in respect of its ownership and use of part of its plant and equipment, namely, poles, wires,

MacDonald, J.A.:—This is an appeal by way of stated case from the decision of the Saskatchewan Assessment Commission which held that the appellant, hereinafter called " ‘ the com- pany,‘‘ is liable to assessment for the year 1944 as carrying on business

ARRETS :—Attendu que mettant en cause les Commissaires nommés et désignés pour le diocèse de Montréal, sous l’empire de la Loi des paroisses et des fabriques (S.R.Q. 1925, ch. 197; S.R.Q. 1941, ch. 308), les appelantes ont intenté aux intimés l’action en

KERWIN J.:—This is an appeal by Aluminum Company of Canada, Limited, from the Court of Appeal for Ontario [[1944] C.T.C. 1] in an assessment dispute between the company and the City of Toronto. The appellant is incorporated by letters patent issued under

ROBERTSON C.J.0.:—This is an appeal upon a stated case, pursuant to s. 85 of The Assessment Act, from the judgment of Judge Grosch, of the County Court of the County of Kent, dismissing an appeal from the Court of Revision of the City of