Boyd, J.:—By way of interpleader application pursuant to Rule 48, the Provincial Crown "the Province") seeks to pay the sum of $13,172.77, less its taxed costs, into court and for further order that upon payment in, its liability to any party in

Hollinrake, J.A. (Macdonald and Toy, JJ.A. concurring):—This is an appeal from the Judgment of Hamilton, J. (as he now is) pronounced September 11, 1989 in which the proceeds from the sale of the defendant's Motor Carrier

Dickson, J.:—This is an appeal by Airtel Communications Ltd. under section 22 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. 1-2, from the respondent's disallowance of a deduction claimed by Airtel under paragraph 4.3(1)(a) of the Act in respect of

Tidman, J. [Orally]:—These are two applications pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 50 for orders directing the Accountant General of Nova Scotia to pay to the applicant sums of money previously paid into court. The respondents also claim entitlement to all

Joyal, J.:—On November 4, 1985, the Island Hall Hotel on Vancouver Island closed its doors and was called into receivership as a result of its failure to pay the required interest on current and long-term bank loans. The plaintiff was, at that

Collier, J. [Orally]:—In this action the plaintiff seeks to recover, or obtain a refund of overpayment of her income taxes for the years 1981 to 1983 inclusive.

Walsh, D.J.:—The issue in this case is the proper classification of fibre optic transmission systems in the telecommunications industry for capital cost allowance purposes for the year 1983, which is the year in question, although the decision will no doubt

Denault, J.:—This is an appeal from a reassessment by Revenue Canada of the plaintiff's corporate income tax return. It involves a sum of $20,250,000 received by the plaintiff from Interprovincial Steel and Pipeline Corporation (hereinafter referred to as" IPSCO”) in settlement

Pratte, J.A.:—The only issue on these appeals from the Trial Division relates to the computation of capital gains realized by the appellant.

Heald, J.A.:—Mr. Mitchell, we do not need to hear your reply to Mr. Van Iperen’s argument on the cross-appeal. We are all of the view that the trial judge did not err in concluding that there is no material difference between the receipts