SHEPPARD, D.J.:—This appeal is by Hope Hardware & Building Supply Co. Ltd. against the re-assessment of June 26, 1964, by the Minister for the taxation years 1960, 1961 and 1962 of the appellant’s distributive share of the profit received by the Corbett

SCHROEDER, J.A. (orally) at the conclusion of the argument :— This is an appeal brought by the applicant Steven Low from an Order pronounced by Donohue, J. in Chambers on April 22, 1966 on an application for an order prohibiting J. L. Gourlay, an

Ritchie, J. (all concur) :—This is an appeal from a judgment of Kearney, J. of the Exchequer Court of Canada directing that an order of the Tax Appeal Board be set aside and restoring the assessment of the Minister of National Revenue for the

Jackett, P.:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Income Tax Appeal Board which was set down, and brought on for hearing before me, on a stated case.

CATTANACH, J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board ((1966), 41 Tax A.B.C. 117) dated April 29, 1966 in respect of an income tax assessment for the 1961 taxation year of the appellant.

JACKETT, P.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board which was set down for hearing, and was argued before me, on a stated case.

CARTWRIGHT, J. (all concur) :—This is an appeal from a judgment of Gibson, J. allowing an appeal by the respondent and dismissing a cross-appeal by the appellant from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board and declaring that under the provisions of the

Gibson, J.:—This is an appeal from the decision of the Tax Appeal Board as to the appellant’s 1962 income tax assessment wherein the excess of receipts over outlay realized on a first mortgage purchased in 1957 and redeemed and paid off in 1962 was

SHEPPARD, D.J.:—This appeal is by Bronze Memorials Limited from the decision of the Tax Appeal Board of November 13, 1963, dismissing the appeal by this appellant from a re-assessment by the Minister for the taxation year 1958 whereby he added $138,150 as taxable income, being the profit received from the sale of Parcel A in Block 3, District Lot 73, Plan 3060 NWD.

This appellant contends that the alleged increase of taxable income was capital gain or, alternatively, was negligible in amount. The facts are as follows:

NEMETZ, J.:—This action came on for hearing before me and was adjourned to May 17, 1967 by consent. I am now asked to consider the motions of Mr. Collier and Mr. MeTaggart to set aside the writs of subpoena duces tecum issued in