Décary J.A.:

1 These applications for judicial review having been heard together on common evidence, the following reasons will apply to both of them.

Tremblay-Lamer J.:

1 This is an application, brought jointly by the Plaintiff, Mr. Joseph Prodor, and the Defendant, the Minister of National Revenue, pursuant to Rule 474 of the Federal Court Rules[FN1: <p>C.R.C.1978, c. 663, as amended.</p>] for a preliminary determination by the Court of a question of law.

Tanasychuk T.O., T.C.C.:

Teskey T.C.J.:

1 The appellant appeals his re-assessment of tax for the years 1990, 91, 92 and 93. In his notice of appeal he elected the informal procedure.

2 Prior to the commencement of this appeal it was decided that appeal no. 96-2277(IT)I would be determined on the decision in this file.

Tardif T.C.J.:

1 These are appeals from notices of assessment for the 1992 and 1993 taxation years. The Minister relied on subsections 15(2) and 248(1) of the Income Tax Act as amended and as applicable when the reassessment, which is the subject of these appeals, was issued.

2 Only the appellant testified. He gave a brief account of his career path, indicating that he had worked for Revenue Canada for seven years.

Hamlyn T.C.J.:

1 These are appeals for the 1993 and 1995 taxation years.

2 I am reading directly from the Reply to the Notice of Appeal as the preliminary steps leading up to these appeals:

4. In computing income for the 1993 and 1995 taxation years, the Appellant failed to include benefits in the amounts of $1,350.00 and $960.00, respectively, received from The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (the “Employer”).

Archambault T.C.J.:

1 The Honourable Kenneth Mackay is appealing a reassessment by the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) with respect to the 1993 taxation year. The notice of reassessment of November 6, 1995 shows a balance due of $2,052. However, the basis of the objection to the reassessment is not altogether clear.

Léger D.J.T.C.:

1 This appeal was heard at Edmundston, New Brunswick on July 19, 1996. This is an appeal from a notice of reassessment relating to the 1993 taxation year made by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) on December 15, 1994 and disallowing the appellant's deduction of medical expenses in the amount of $4,530.32. The Court asked for written comments from the parties to be submitted by October 1, 1996.

Reed J.:

1 The issue in this case is whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim inventory allowances with respect to certain goods for the years 1978-86 and investment tax credits for the years 1983-1987. The relevant legislative provisions are paragraph 20(1)(gg) and section 127 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, as amended (the “Act”).

Giles A.S.P.:

1 By the motion before me, the defendants seek to strike the Statement of Claim under Rule 419(1)(a) on the grounds that this Court does not have jurisdiction. The plaintiff has responded seeking to strike the Notice of Motion on the grounds that a motion to strike for lack of jurisdiction should be brought under Rule 401, and also alleging that a motion under Rule 401 should be brought before a judge and not before a prothonotary.