Bowman T.C.J.:

Rip T.C.J.:

Jerome A.C.J.:

Marceau J.A.:

1 We are all of the view that this appeal cannot succeed.

2 The argument, using the Bill of Rights as an aid to interpretation, does not convince us that we should depart from the jurisprudence of this Courtas to how section 165(3) of the Income Tax Act should be constructed.

3 The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

Bowie T.C.J.:

Beaubier T.C.J.:

1 This appeal, pursuant to the informal procedure, was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on March 6th, 1997. The Appellant was the only witness.

Chevalier D.J.:

1 These are appeals from two judgments, the first by Pinard J. (file no. A-464-93) in The Queen v. Mercantile Bank of Canada et al.,and the second by Nation J. (file no. A-607-94) in Minister of National Revenue v. National Bank of Canada,which were heard jointly on appeal.

Tardif T.C.J.:

1 This is an appeal from a notice of confirmation dated February 20, 1995, of an assessment made on October 6, 1994. The reassessment resulted from the refusal by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) to allow the moving expenses claimed by the appellant for the 1992 and 1993 taxation years.

O'Connor T.C.J.:

1 These appeals were heard at Toronto, Ontario on November 19, 1997 pursuant to the Informal Procedure of this Court. Testimony was given by Mr. Egger and several exhibits were filed by both parties.

Bell T.C.J.:

Issue:

1 The issue is whether the Appellant, a land developer, is liable for tax in respect of the supply of real property building lots to certain purchasers. The issue will be resolved by the interpretation of subsection 336(1) of the Excise Tax Act (the “Act”), Part IX, which reads as follows:

Where

• (a) a taxable supply by way of sale of real property is made to a person, and