Search - 侵犯公民个人信息罪 交易明细 计算条数

DATED: December 28, 2023 APPEARANCES: Janie Grandmont FOR THE APPLICANT ON HER OWN BEHALF Samantha Jackmino FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT   ...

’?’’ The test is not always easy to apply, for there is no single criterion by which the question may be resolved, and cases frequently arise in which there are circumstances or facts pointing to both conclusions. ...

The plaintiff also alleges that by reason of further sales and deliveries of such equipment and supplies in the period from August 1, 1966 to the end of 1967 the company became further liable for sales tax at 12%, making a tax liability of $715.55, which the company neglected, failed or refused to pay (paragraph 5 of the Information); and that by reason of non-payment of that liability the company became liable to penalties that amounted to $159.79 to April 30, 1970 (paragraph 6), In the Information the plaintiff alleges that the amounts remaining unpaid and owing to Her Majesty by the defendant were: Penalties to August 12, 1968, $ 602.10 Tax unpaid 715,55 Penalties on said tax to April 30, 1970 159.79 Total $1,477,44 and the plaintiff claims: (a) payment of that sum of $1,477. 44: (b) payment of additional penalties and interest accruing under the Act, until judgment; (c) costs. ...

His data with respect to the sale of those lots, including the subject parcel, was as follows: Rate Per Time # Date Vendor Price Area Acre Adjustment 1 May 1973 Donahue 47,050 37.64 1,250 1,125 4 Feb 1973 Delahunt 30,000 24 1,250 1,125 14 Oct 1973 Price 63,210 63.21 1,000.900 15 Nov 1973 Bell: 42,597 47.33 900 810 16 Dec 1971. ...

Q The press release was November — A November 20. Q November 20, 1972? ...

In the 1974 statement there were three reported sources as follows, but the second one, as previously stated, was indicated to be “(without Prejudice)”: Fees earned $ 39551. ...

At 567 & 6376 respectively, Mr Justice Jackett then President of the Exchequer Court of Canada stated: With great doubt as to the correctness of my conclusion, I am of opinion that section 139(1)(e) does not operate to make a non-resident person subject to Canadian income tax in respect of a profit from an adventure that otherwise does not amount to, and is not part of, a “business”. ...

He adds that “construing the words ‘at any time’ literally and out of context means the Crown could commence proceedings today to collect tax due on a transaction back in 1915 — clearly an unreasonable result.” ...

., salary] for a taxation year from an office or employment. (6) For the purposes of paragraph 1(m), a taxpayer's “ contribution limit” for a taxation year under subparagraph 1(m)(i) or (ii) in respect of a registered pension fund or plan means such amount as is designated by the taxpayer in his return of income for the year to be his contribution limit for the year under subparagraph (1)(m)(i) or (ii), as the case may be, in respect of that fund or plan, not exceeding however the amount, if any, by which $3,500 exceeds the aggregate of amounts each of which is his contribution limit for the year under subparagraph (1)(m)(i) or (ii), as the case may be, in respect of any other such fund or plan. (8) Where an amount has been contributed by a taxpayer to or under a registered pension fund or plan... ...

Further, the documents in question were placed in the sheriff's custody by the lawyer, and not the officer, so that the sheriff did not become a " custodian" within the meaning of subsection 232(6) and as defined in subsection 232(1)(b). ...