Collier, J:

1 The Minister of National Revenue assessed the plaintiff's income tax for the year 1969 on a total amount of $40,000 received by him, a non-resident, in that year from a Canadian company. The plaintiff's position is that the moneys received were a “pension” within Article VIA of the Canada-US Tax Convention, and therefore exempt from taxation in Canada. The Tax Review Board confirmed the Minister's assessment. This appeal followed.

Bowman T.C.J.:

1 These appeals are from assessments for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years. They involve the deductibility of rental losses incurred by the appellant in those years.

Heald, J:

1 These two actions were tried together on common evidence, by the order of Cattanach, J and are appeals from assessments for income tax for the plaintiff's 1968, 1969 and 1970 taxation years.

The Chairman:

Lacroix, DJ:

1 Joseph Lorenzo Guay of the City of Montreal died on January 19, 1962. He was president of J L Guay Limitée. He held 43 shares of the J L Guay Limitée construction company. As a matter of fact, he was a minority shareholder, because his son Léon personally held 140 shares of the same company; the very few remaining shares were held by some relatives.

Cattanach, J:

1 These are appeals from a decision of the Tax Review Board which had dismissed the appeals by the plaintiff herein to that Board from the assessments to income tax by the Minister of National Revenue in respect of the plaintiff's income for his 1969, 1970 and 1971 taxation years.

2 In the three taxation years the plaintiff, in computing his income, had deducted farming losses in the respective amounts of $16,288.54, $19,752.62 and $18,576.80.

Addy, J:

Mogan T.C.J.:

Judge K A Flanigan:

The Chairman (orally: December 11, 1974):

1 This is an appeal by Lazare Investments Corporation against the reassessment of the Minister of National Revenue for the 1972 taxation year.

2 The question to be determined is whether or not the appellant company is carrying on an active business under section 125 of the 1972 Act. All the requirements of the section have been complied with and the only issue is whether the appellant carried on an “active business”.