The Chairman:—The appeal of Arlene Fay McGinn from an income tax assessment in respect of the 1973 taxation year was heard in Calgary on May 11, 1977.

Pratte, J (concurred in by Ryan, J and MacKay, DJ):—This is an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division allowing the respondent’s appeal from the assessment of its income tax for the year 1967. This appeal raises the same questions as the

Praite, J (concurred in by Ryan, J and MacKay, DJ):—This is an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division allowing the respondent’s appeal from the assessment of its income tax for the year 1966. This appeal raises the same questions as the

Bastin, DJ:—This action is an appeal from the decision of the Tax Review Board which upheld an assessment by the Minister of income tax on a payment received by the plaintiff of $83,882.16 on the ground that it was interest. I concur with

The Chairman:—The appeals of Georges Girard were heard at Montreal, Quebec on January 15, 1976, concurrently with that of Georges Girard Inc. In order to avoid any possible confusion, the decision and reasons for judgment in the appeal of Georges Girard

A W Prociuk:—The appellant, Metcalfe Realty Company Limited, appeals from the respondent’s assessments of its income for the taxation years 1970, 1971 and 1972, wherein a special municipal charge of $54,546.57 paid by the appellant to the City of Ottawa in

The Chairman:—This is the appeal of Henuset Bros Ltd from an income tax assessment in respect of the 1971 taxation year.

Ryan, J (concurred in by Kerr and Sheppard, DJJ) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—This is an appeal from the judgment of the Trial Division, dated April 22, 1976, which dismissed the appellant’s appeal from a judgment of the Tax Review Board.

Mahoney, J:—The issue in this case is whether payments totalling $4,500 received by the defendant from the Canada Council in 1972 were on account of a scholarship, fellowship or bursary or on account of a research grant. Subject to any other deductions that may

The Chief Justice (judgment delivered from the Bench) (concurred in by Pratte, J and Hyde, DJ):—There is no material difference between this appeal and the appeal heard simultaneously in The Queen v Rockmore Investments