SHEPPARD, D. J.:—This appeal is from an assessment by the Minister of National Revenue for the years 1962 and 1963, on the ground that the sums realized were not taxable income of the appellant but capital. The opening alleges that the sums from

SHEPPARD, D. J.:—This appeal is from the re-assessment by the Minister of National Revenue for the taxation year 1962 by adding two items known as the Comox Street Property and the Main Street Property to the appellant’s taxable income. The appellant contends

SHEPPARD, D.J.:—This appeal is from the Tax Appeal Board on the ground that the assessment of the appellant was in error in assessing him for the year 1963 in respect of $31,066.32 as the recovery of a capital cost allowance.

JACKETT, P.:—This is an appeal from the appellant’s assessment under Part I of the Income Tax Act for its 1962 taxation year. The sole question to be decided is whether a profit of $78,403.37 realized by the appellant on the sale of

J ACKETT, P.:—This is an appeal from a re-assessment of the appellant under Part I of the Income Tax Act for the 1961 taxation year. The sole question in issue is whether the respondent was wrong in including in the appellant’ s

Kerr, J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board which upheld the Minister’s re-assessment of the appellant’s income tax for its 1962 taxation year. In making that assessment the Minister added to the appellant’s reported income the sum

MACDONALD, J.:—This is an appeal pursuant to Section 44 of the Succession Duty Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, c. 372, by the executor of the estate of Andrew Lawrence Carper from the decision of the Minister of Finance whereby he affirmed an assessment of duty under the statute in the sum of $21,332.52.

MORAND, J.:—This matter was heard in Weekly Court by way of an appeal under The Succession Duty Act, R.S.O. 1960, c. 386. The facts briefly are as follows :

Keith, J.:—In this matter counsel representing the estate of the late Edward Douglas Gibb who died on or about May 26, 1965 and counsel representing the Treasurer of Ontario have taken widely divergent positions in making submissions with respect to the

JACKETT, P.:—This is a motion on behalf of the respondent for an order

(a) requiring the Appellant to produce for inspection the memorandum prepared by the Appellant’s solicitor, and referred to in question