JACKETT, P.:—This is an appeal from the assessment of the appellant under Part I of the Income Tax Act for the 1964 taxation year whereby there was included in the appellant’s income for that year an amount of $669,900 as being a

GIBSON, J.:—This is an appeal from a re-assessment for the taxation year 1964 by which the respondent added to the income of the appellant the amount of $16,734.84, described in the form T7W-C accompanying the re-assessment as profit on the sale of 2.021

GIBSON, J.:—The issue in this appeal is whether or not the receipt by the appellant in 1950 of 490 shares of Boon Strachan Coal Company Limited, which the parties agree had a value of $200,000, was income from a business within the meaning of

THURLOW, J.:—The issue in each of these three appeals, which at the request of the parties, were heard together on common evidence, is whether the appellant is liable for income tax in respect of an amount representing expenses paid by The Oshawa

JACKETT, P.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board dismissing the appeal of the appellant from reassessments made against him on a net worth basis for the 1952, 1953, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960 taxation years, and a

Abbott, J. (orally for the Court) :—We are all in agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned trial judge that the profit in issue on this appeal was a gain made in carrying out a scheme for profit making and was income from a business

CATTANACH, J.:—These are appeals by the appellants named in the above styles of cause from assessments to income tax. For the purposes of convenience the first named appellant will be hereinafter referred to as Bestpipe and the second named appellant as

GIBSON, J.:—The appellants in these two appeals tried together appeal against re-assessments for income tax for the taxation year 1965, whereby $27,000 was added to the income of the appellant Campeau and $30,000 was added to the income of the appellant

Abbott, J. (orally for the Court) :—We are all of opinion that the expenditure of $1,932,150 made by the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario was not an expenditure which can be taken into account in determining the capital cost to appellant of its

MARTLAND, J. (all concur) :—This is an appeal by the Minister of Mines for the Province of Ontario from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, together with a cross-appeal by Rio Algom Mines Limited, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’’,