WHITTAKER, J.:—This is an appeal by the appellant from the sentence imposed upon a conviction made by His Worship Magistrate J. MacKenzie of Red Deer, in the Province of Alberta, on August 22, 1968, on a charge that he, the appellant, did between

CATTANACH, J.:—These are appeals from two assessments made by the Minister dated March 23, 1967 in respect of appellant’s 1964 and 1965 taxation years wherein the Minister added the amounts of $20,143.30 and $22,143.30 to the appellant’s income in those respective

CATTANACH, J.:—This is an appeal from an assessment to income tax by the Minister whereby an amount of $1,384 was added to the income of the appellant for his 1964 taxation year.

The amount of $1,384 represents the cost of a vacation trip for the appellant and his wife from Toronto, Ontario to Fort Lauderdale, Florida from where they embarked on a Caribbean cruise, and return to Toronto. It was agreed between the parties that the foregoing sum represents the cost of such trip to Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Ford”).

GIBSON, J.:—The issue for decision is whether or not in its taxation years 1961 and 1962 the respondent Crossley Carpets (Canada) Limited is liable to pay an additional 15 per cent income tax pursuant to Section 110B of the Income Tax Act,

JACKETT, P,:—This is an appeal by the Estate of Arthur Warwick Beament from the assessment under the Estate Tax Act in respect of that estate.

JACKETT, P.:—This is a motion by the appellant for default judgment.

Dryer, J.:—Many of the paragraphs of the affidavit of Archie Frank Hale do not meet the requirements of M.R. 523 and I have consequently disregarded them. Some paragraphs of the affidavit are statements of inferences drawn by the deponent from matters said

JACKETT, P.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board dismissing the appellant’s appeal from a reassessment of the appellant’s liability for income tax under Part I of the Income Tax Act for the 1962 taxation year.

CATTANACH, J.:—The appeals of the two appellants named in the above styles of cause against their respective assessments to income tax in respect of their 1964 taxation years were conveniently heard together by consent because both appeals arose from the identical