Bowie T.C.J.:

1 The Appellant appeals from her reassessment for income tax for the 1980 taxation year. In filing her return she claimed to be entitled to take into account in computing her income for taxation purposes a business loss in the amount of $2,005.00 suffered in connection with the business of distributing a speed reading course called “The Advanced Reading Course” (the course).

Lamarre Proulx T.C.J.:

1 These are appeals for the 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992 taxation years.

Archambault T.C.J.:

Margeson T.C.J.:

1 The matter before the Court at this time for decision is that of Laurie Gee and Her Majesty The Queen, 96-4120(IT)I. The sole question for determination is whether or not during the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years, the Appellant, Laurie Gee, was entitled to claim the deductions in question which have been disallowed by the Minister, the amounts of $6,403, $8,519 and $10,177, respectively.

Linden J.A.:

Richard Morneau, Esq., Prothonotary:

1 This is a motion in opposition to this Court by the opposant under article 597 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking the nullity of a seizure in execution of immovable property carried out by the judgment creditor against an immovable consisting of a lot and building, known as civic number 5175, 18ième rue, Grand-Mère (hereinafter the “immovable”).

Taylor T.C.J.:

1 This is an appeal heard in Hamilton, Ontario, on May 12, 1997, against an assessment in which the Respondent disallowed expenses in the amounts of $3,260.11 and $2,785.70 for the years 1993 and 1994 respectively, claimed under the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) from income earned as an employee on commission with Leon's Furniture Ltd. (Leon's) totalling $54,984 and $48,650 in those same years.

Christie A.C.J.T.C.:

1 These appeals are governed by the informal procedure provided for under section 18 and following sections of the Tax Court of Canada Act. The years under review are 1992, 1993, 1994.

Bell T.C.J.:

• 1. Whether an allowable business investment loss was deductible by the Appellant in her 1990 taxation year,

• 2. Whether the Minister of National Revenue had properly included in her income for the 1990 taxation year, as employment income, the sum of $39,002.28, and

Hamlyn T.C.J.:

1 This motion concerns a motion filed by Mr. Davies for an extension of time to file the Answer to the Reply.

2 The Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”), as I have earlier alluded to, responded to the Notice of Motion by saying that the motion would not be opposed by the Respondent on condition that paragraph 19(b) of the Answer be deleted.