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.

Hamlyn T.C.J.:

1 This is an appeal with respect to the 1993 taxation year.

2 In computing income for the 1993 taxation year, the Appellant deducted the amount of $45,462.00 as moving expenses.

3 In reassessing the Appellant for the 1993 taxation year, the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) disallowed the deduction of moving expenses in the amount of $9,536.00 to the Appellant.

Bowman T.C.J.:

1 This is an appeal, Mr. Druce from assessments from the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years. The issue boils down to deductibility as a business expense of the sum of $22,771.26. This is a very, very sad case.

Lamarre Proulx T.C.J.:

Lamarre Proulx T.C.J.:

1 The Appellant has filed a Notice of Appeal by way of the informal procedure for the years 1994 and 1995.

Marceau J.A.:

1 We are all of the opinion that this appeal is without merit.

Archambault T.C.J.:

1 This is an appeal from an assessment by the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) dated October 6, 1992, respecting Mr. Fauteux's alleged liability under subsection 227.1(1) of the Income Tax Act (Act) and section 68.1 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.

Reeve, T.O., T.C.C.:

1 This taxation of costs was heard via conference call at 12:00 PM (PST) on Friday November 7, 1997. It follows a judgment of the Honourable Judge O'Connor on January 20, 1995 dismissing the appeals, with costs. The Bill of Costs flows from an appeal pursuant to the Income Tax Act. Present was the Respondent's counsel, Mr. Ted Fulcher, and the Appellant's counsel, Mr. Murray Greenwood.

Beaubier T.C.J.:

1 These appeals pursuant to the Informal Procedure were heard together on common evidence by consent of the parties at Edmonton, Alberta on February 23, 1998.

2 Trevor Midgley testified and called David Penton. The Respondent called Richard Trembath, an auditor for Revenue Canada.

Bowie T.C.J.:

1 These two appeals are concerned with the application of the penal provisions found in subsections 163(2) and 110.6(6) of the Income Tax Act (the Act). They arise out of the failure of the taxpayers to disclose on their income tax returns for the year 1989 the very substantial gain which they each realized from the sale by them in January 1989 of a building at 1022 Danforth Avenue in the city of Toronto (the building).