Addy, J:—The plaintiff is appealing from a decision of the Tax Review Board dismissing its appeal to that Board. The dispute centres on the following facts: Marie Léonide Landes and Désiré Camille Séguin were married under the system of separation of property pursuant
Heald, J:—This is an appeal in respect of income tax assessments for the taxation years 1966 and 1967 wherein the respondent disallowed a farm loss of the appellant in the sum of $1,034.59 in the taxation year 1966 and in the sum of $1,671.32 in the
Judge Grossberg (orally):—It will not assist me to reserve judgment in this case. It is better if I now give my decision and reasons while the evidence and the arguments of counsel are fresh in my mind.
Gibson, J:—These three appeals were heard on common evidence. The three appellants and one Roderick J Smith, as chartered accountants, carried on their practice in partnership from 1955 to January 15, 1966 when the partnership was dissolved. After that time,
Décary, J (orally):—The point at issue is whether or not a payment equivalent to a portion of a deduction of 2% of the earnings of defendant to a fund to be used partially for income-replacement purposes in case of total disability or
Pratte, J (per curiam) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—Mr Hobson, we have decided not to call on you.
The Chief Justice (per curiam) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—It is not necessary to hear you further Mr Cote. We are all agreed that, on an examination of the evidence as a whole the finding of the learned trial
Heald, J:—This is an appeal from the reassessment by the Minister of National Revenue of the plaintiff’s income tax returns for the taxation years 1967, 1968 and 1969. The Minister added to the plaintiff’s net income the following amounts as
Thurlow, J (per curiam) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—We have decided not to call on you, Mr Chalmers and Mr Powers.
Kerr, J:—This is an appeal in respect of a reassessment of income tax made by the Minister of National Revenue, dated December 29, 1972, for the plaintiff’s 1967 taxation year, and in particular from a direction made pursuant to subsection 138A(2)
