Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

Decision (L8/R4948/T0/BT0) test_marked_paragraph_end (838) 1.017 0079_6047_6177 The sections of the Income Tax Act which are relevant are sections 225.1 and 225.2 which I reproduce here: 225 I (1) Collection restrictions — Where a taxpayer is liable for the payment of an amount assessed under this Act, the Minister shall not, for the purpose of collecting the amount, (a) commence legal proceedings in a court, (b) certify the amount under section 223. (c) require a person to make a payment under subsection 224(1), (d) require an institution or a person to make a payment under subsection 224(1.1), (e) require the retention of the amount by way of deduction or set-off under section 224.1, (f) require a person to turn over moneys under subsection 224.3(1), or (g) give a notice, issue a certificate or make a direction under subsection 225(1) until after the day that is 90 days after the day of the mailing of the notice of assessment. (2) Idem — Where a taxpayer has served a notice of objection under this Act to an assessment of an amount payable under this Act, the Minister shall not, for the purpose of collecting the amount in controversy, take any of the actions described in paragraphs (1)(a) to (g) until after the day that is 90 days after the day on which notice is mailed to the taxpayer that the Minister has confirmed or varied the assessment. 225 2(2) Authorization to proceed forthwith — Notwithstanding section 225.1, where, on ex parte application by the Minister, a judge is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the collection of all or any part of an amount assessed in respect of a taxpayer would be jeopardized by a delay in the collection of that amount, the judge shall, on such terms as the judge considers reasonable in the circumstances, authorize the Minister to take forthwith any of the actions described in paragraphs 225.1(a) to (g) with respect to the amount. ...

.: — The petitioners ask for an order pursuant to section 232(4) of the Income Tax Act that they have solicitor-client privilege over the file of Douglas W. ... I have reminded myself, as I did in British Columbia (Minister of Environment, Lands & Parks) v. British Columbia (Information & Privacy Commissioner) (1995), 16 B.C.L.R. (3d) 64 (S.C.) of the sanctity that must be afforded to solicitor-client privilege. ...

Black & Decker Mfg. Co. (1974), 13 C.P.R. (2d) 97; 15 C.C.C. (2d) 193; 43 D.L.R. (3d) 393; 1 N.R. 299, in which an amalgamated company was held criminally liable for the acts of one of the amalgamating companies. There Black & Decker had amalgamated with two other companies pursuant to the provisions of the Canada Corporations Act. ... In Black & Decker the court placed great weight upon the use of the word “continue” in section 137. ...

Those taken from Ernst & Young were sealed in an envelope and marked Exhibit C to his affidavit. ... Communications between Ladner Downs and Clarkson Gordon (now Ernst & Young) concerning the petitioners' legal affairs; 3. ... Exhibit " B", 1-10, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 27, 51-52, 61; Exhibit" C", 1-2, 4-5, 7-39, 41-43, 62-66. ...

I was referred to the following further authorities on this question: Hubbuck v Helms (1887) 56 LJ Ch 536, Robson v Smith [1985] 2 Ch 118, Re Victoria Steamboats Ltd. [1897] 1 Ch 158, Davey & Co v Williamson & Sons Ltd. [1898] 2 QB 194, Re Yorkshire Woolcombers Association Ltd. [1903] 2 Ch 284 (Illingworth's case in the Court of Appeal), Edward Nelson & Co Ltd v Faber & Co [1903] 2 KB 367, Evans v Rival Granite Quarries Ltd [1910] 2 KB 979, and Re Crompton & Co Ltd [1914] 1 Ch 954. ... This problem was overcome in a practical way — Ms. Swystun stated the general nature of the document and the reason for her claim to privilege, and the contents so far as it was proper to disclose them; Ms. ... NOTE — The formal order disposing of the documents, which includes the working list as I have said earlier, forms part of the Appendix.) ...

. — A judge may, on ex parte application by the Minister, issue a warrant in writing authorizing any person named therein to enter and search any building, receptacle or place for any document or thing that may afford evidence as to the commission of an offence under this Act and to seize and, as soon as practicable, bring the document or thing before, or make a report in respect thereof to, the judge or, where the judge is unable to act, another judge of the same court to be dealt with by the judge in accordance with this section. (2) Evidence in support of application. — An application under subsection (1) shall be supported by information on oath establishing the facts on which the application is based. (3) Evidence. — A judge shall issue the warrant referred to in subsection (1) where he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that (a) an offence under this Act has been committed; (b) a document or thing that may afford evidence of the commission of the offence is likely to be found; and (c) the building, receptacle or place specified in the application is likely to contain such a document or thing. (4) Contents of warrant. — A warrant issued under subsection (1) shall refer to the offence for which it is issued, identify the building, receptacle or place to be searched and the person alleged to have committed the offence and it shall be reasonably specific as to any document or thing to be searched for and seized. (5) Seizure of document. — Any person who executes a warrant under subsection 1 may seize, in addition to the document or thing referred to in subsection (1), any other document or thing that he believes on reasonable grounds affords evidence of the commission of an offence under this Act and shall as soon as practicable bring the document or thing before, or make a report in respect thereof to, the judge who issued the warrant or, where the judge is unable to act, another judge of the same court to be dealt with by the judge in accordance with this section. (6) Retention of things seized. — Subject to subsection (7), where any document or thing seized under subsection (1) or (5) is brought before a judge or a report in respect thereof is made to a judge, the judge shall, unless the Minister waives retention, order that it be retained by the Minister, who shall take reasonable care to ensure that it is preserved until the conclusion of any investigation into the offence in relation to which the document or thing was seized or until it is required to be produced for the purposes of a criminal proceeding. (7) Return of things seized. — Where any document or thing seized under subsection (1) or (5) is brought before a judge or a report in respect thereof is made to a judge, the judge may, of his own motion or on summary application by a person with an interest in the document or thing on three clear days notice of application to the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, order the document or thing be returned to the person from whom it was seized or the person who is otherwise legally entitled thereto if the judge is satisfied that the document or thing (a) will not be required for an investigation or a criminal proceeding; or (b) was not seized in accordance with the warrant or this section. (8) Access and copies. — The person from whom any document or thing is seized pursuant to this section is entitled, at all reasonable times and subject to such reasonable conditions as may be imposed by the Minister, to inspect the document or thing and to obtain one copy of the document at the expense of the Minister. ... (b) Criminal Code, section 670 — Recommendation by a Jury According to section 670 of the Criminal Code, a judge “shall" put to the jury a request for its recommendations as to sentence following a verdict of guilty of second degree murder. ...

British Columbia (Information & Privacy Commissioner) (1996), 140 D.L.R. (4th) 372 (B.C. ... In Eastwood & Co. v. Minister of National Revenue (1993), 94 D.T.C. 6411 (B.C. ... Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co. of Canada (April 3, 1995), Doc. ...

Pinto & Co., [1925] 1 K.B. 30, another case cited, is of the same genre as the Maclaine case and does not assist the respondent. I think that perhaps the root case here is Grainger & Son v. Gough, [1896] A.C. 825. ... The decision of Taylor, J. in Re Income Tax Act and Procter & Gamble, [1937] 3 W.W.R. 680, was relied on by the respondent. ...

Takahashi & Company Ltd. and Douglas Plywood Ltd. were faced with conflicting demands by the plaintiff and by the Department of National Revenue, Taxation Division, to certain moneys which they owed and would otherwise have paid to Canadian Plywood Corporation Ltd. ... (b) Canadian Plywood was at all times material indebted to the plaintiff and to the Crown Federal in amounts in excess of the total moneys in court. (¢) Takahashi and Douglas each owed the moneys in court to Canadian Plywood prior to April 15, 1970. ... &. C. en banc, per MacDonald, J.: Hence I think it is desirable to point out that the prerogative claimed by the Crown Dominion is that described in the Attorney- General’s factum herein as “the prerogative which provides that, whenever the right of the Crown and the right of the subject with respect to the payment of debts or claims of equal degree come into competition, the right of the Crown prevails... to the exclusion or postponement of other claimants of equal degree”. ...

However, the submission of the plaintiffs receives considerable support in judgments in the Supreme Court of Canada: City of Montreal v Montreal Light, Heat & Power Co (1909), 42 SCR 431. ... I refer firstly to the judgment of the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Terrace Water Co v San Antonio Light & Power Co et al (1905), 82 P 562. ... I decide this case on the basis that the Supreme Court of Canada in City of Montreal v Montreal Light Heat & Power Co, supra, has decided that electricity is a commodity and accepting the view expressed in People of State of Illinois v Menagas that electricity is personal property. ...