Hamlyn, J.T.C.C. (orally):—This is in the matter of Robert Easton, versus Her Majesty the Queen. It is an appeal with respect to the 1989, 1990, and 1991 taxation years. In computing income for the 1989, 1990, and 1991 taxation years, the

McArthur, J.T.C.C.:—Harry Wynberg Jr., Peter Wynberg, and Gerard F. Wynberg, the appellants, appeal under the informal procedure, the respondent's reassessments of their 1988 and 1989 taxation years. The appeals were heard on common evidence.

Mahoney, J.A. (orally):—While we are not able to subscribe without qualification to the reasons of the learned trial judge, we are not persuaded that he erred in the result. We are entirely satisfied that the appellant did not discharge the onus on

Hamlyn, T.C.C.J.:—These procedural motions are in relation to an appeal for the 1986 taxation year from an assessment decision of the Minister of National Revenue wherein the sale of a particular real property was assessed to be on revenue account as

Noël, J.:— This is an appeal by Her Majesty the Queen (hereinafter "the plaintiff") from a decision by the Tax Court of Canada allowing an appeal by Trade Investments Shopping Centre Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant") and referring back to the Minister of National

Isaac, C.J. (orally):—We do not need to hear from you Mr. Softley. The appellant has not persuaded us that the learned trial judge has committed any error of law that would warrant our interference.

King, D.T.C.C.J.:—This appeal was heard in conjunction with the Michael Gondosch appeal.

Couture, T.C.C.J.:—Les cotisations sous appel ont trait aux années d'imposition 1986 et 1987. Le faits suivants ont été dévoilés par la preuve.

Craig, J:—On January 28, 1991, each of the accused elected to be tried in the Provincial Court and pled not guilty to 11 counts in information 12918C. Trial on all charges commenced January 28, 1991, and concluded February 27, 1991.

Sobier, T.C.CJ.:—The appellant appeals from the reassessment by the respondent for his 1986 taxation year whereby, in respect of the disposition of certain real property, the respondent recorded the amount of $47,826.90 as business income, whereas the appellant had reported