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
Gibson, J:—For the reasons given in the case of Plan A Leasing Limited v Her Majesty the Queen (Court No T-2224-75) this date, this appeal is allowed with costs, and the matter is directed to be
The Chairman (orally):—Basically this is an appeal by Donald Eugene Morgan, but the evidence in this case is to be applied by consent in the appeals of Maitland Almost, Carlyle A Bodkin and Frank E Cassin. The appeals arise out of notices of
Roland St-Onge:—This appeal is from an assessment dated July 8, 1970 and concerns the appellant’s 1967 taxation year.
Collier, J:—The reasons for judgment which I gave in MacMillan Bloedel (Alberni) Limited v MNR (p 295) apply in this appeal in respect to the disallowance by the Minister of the deductions claimed by the appellant
