Thurlow, J (per curiam—judgment delivered from the Bench):—We do not need to hear you Mr Chalmers and Mr Lefebvre. Notwithstanding the very able argument of Mr Vineberg on behalf of the appellant we are all of the opinion that the
Cattanach, J:—This is an appeal by Her Majesty the Queen from a decision by the Tax Review Board whereby the defendant’s appeal from an assessment made by the Minister of National Revenue in respect of the defendant’s taxation year. ending June 30, 1969 was
Cattanach, J:—This is an appeal from an assessment to income tax by the Minister for the plaintiff’s taxation year ending October 31, 1968.
Walsh, J:—This is an appeal by the Minister of National Revenue from a judgment of the Tax Review Board dated April 26, 1972 allowing defendant’s appeal from assessments dated July 14, 1970 for the taxation years 1967 and 1968 whereby the sums
Sheppard, DJ:—The issue is whether the plaintiff Myer Franks Ltd “produced or manufactured in Canada” within paragraph 27(1 )(a) of the Excise Tax Act so as to be liable to pay sales tax of 12%
Urie, J:—The plaintiff herein appeals to this Court from the reassessment for income tax by the Minister of National Revenue for the years 1967 and 1968, wherein he deducted from the plaintiff’s profits attributable to the production of prime metal from
Mahoney, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board, as it then was, confirming the respondent’s assessment of the appellant’s corporation income tax for its 1965 and 1966 taxation years on the ground that the corporation income
Cattanach, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board (now the Tax Review Board) dated August 14, 1972 whereby the defendant’s appeal to that Board from its assessment to income tax for its 1967 taxation year by the Minister
Rowbotham, J:—This action comes before me pursuant to an order of the Master in Chambers made in response to an application by the Sheriff of Calgary for interpleader relief.
Ritchie, J (concurred in by the Chief Justice and Pigeon, J):— I agree with the reasons for judgment prepared for delivery by Mr Justice Laskin, but I am unable to partake of the view expressed by Mr Justice Spence and the majority of
