Search - 侵犯公民个人信息罪 交易明细 计算条数

.: — I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by my brother Urie, J.A. ...

These concerns arose from a series of events, including (a) his inability to cause the $20,000 cheque to be sent to Revenue Canada; (b) his failure to supply accurate statements showing the financial condition of the Corporation; (c) the fact that without Board authorization Jardine hired his wife as an employee of the Corporation; (d) his authorization to pay the sum of approximately $10,000 to Green, Haley & Pye for a restructuring report without receiving Board authorization; (e) his alleged verbal abuse of certain production employees of the Corporation; (f) his general habit of running the Corporation, making decisions and enforcing certain procedures without alerting the Board; and (g) his rosy projections of increased numbers of tourist buses and increased sales to customers, including a major customer, Jean Depot, which projections did not materialize. ...

., as he then was, in London & Thames Haven Oil Wharves Ltd. v. Attwool (1966), 43 T.C. 491, at page 515: The question whether a sum of money received by a trader ought to be taken into account in computing the profits of gains arising in any year from his trade is one which ought to be susceptible of solution by applying rational criteria. ...

The precise scope of the residual category- windfall gains — has proven problematic. ...

The Queen, [...] that argument cannot be rejected. Indeed, in that decision, as I read it, the Court held that the word "distribution" in Class 2 is used in a very general sense that encompasses what the jargon of the natural gas industry refers to as the transmission and the distribution of gas. ...

Squibb & Sons Ltd. v. M.N.R., [1973] F.C. 162; [1973] C.T.C. 120, The Queen v. ...

., supra, at page 2278 (D.T.C. 271) (T.C.C.) where Bonner, T.C.C.J. stated: In my view the definition of “ principal residence" contained in paragraph 54(g) is such that considerations as to what can lawfully and effectively be conveyed are irrelevant. ...

Minister of Manpower & Immigration, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 375, 81 D.L.R. (3d) 687, at page 381 (D.L.R. 691). ...

Therefore, the maximum amount that could be assessed against the Appellant was $20,912 calculated as follows: Amount assessed under section 160 $52,662.30 Estimated value of the Appellant's shares according to evidence between $58,000 to $69,000 say    $63,500.00 One-half thereof to Mrs. ...

In 1994- according to Records of Employment – Exhibits R-4 and R-5- she worked 14 weeks for Doreen McMillan and 8 and 2/3 weeks for Almey. ...