Search - 包建铎违纪违法案件以案促改以案促治专题组织生活会 个人对照检查

III.   The Evidence [7]   ProWise submits that the evidence presented by RWDI is seriously deficient. ... AND REAGAN JING   PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario   DATE OF HEARING: March 27, 2019   JUDGMENT AND REASONS: O'REILLY J.   DATED: September 23, 2019   APPEARANCES: Rade Sajic   For The Applicant   David Reive   For The Respondents   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Sorbara, Schumacher, McCann LLP Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario   For The Applicant   Miller Thomson LLP Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario   For The Respondents     ...

Graham Construction & Engineering (1985) Ltd. v. The Queen, docket 2000-1209(IT)G Date: 20021025 Docket: 2000-1209-IT-G BETWEEN: GRAHAM CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING (1985) LTD., Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. ... COURT FILE NO.:                                                 2000-1209(IT)G STYLE OF CAUSE:                                               Graham Construction & Engineering (1985) Ltd. and                                                                                                 Her Majesty the Queen PLACE OF HEARING:                                         Calgary, Alberta DATE OF HEARING:                                           September 16, 2002 REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                               The Honourable Judge Diane Campbell DATE OF ORDER:                                                October 25, 2002 APPEARANCES: Counsel for the Appellant: Jehad Haymour and                                                                                 Denny Kwan Counsel for the Respondent:              Bonnie F. Moon COUNSEL OF RECORD: For the Appellant:                 Name:                                Jehad Haymour Firm:                  Fraser Milner                                                                                                 Calgary, Alberta For the Respondent:                             Morris Rosenberg                                                                                 Deputy Attorney General of Canada                                                                                                 Ottawa, Canada 2000-1209(IT)G BETWEEN: GRAHAM CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING (1985) LTD., Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. ...

A Notice of Objection was filed on September 28, 2001. 5.          By Notice of Decision dated January 15, 2002, the Minister confirmed the assessment. 6.          ... E-15, (the " Act ") effective January 1, 1991, and was assigned a GST registration number 101076826; c)          the Appellant was required to file quarterly GST returns; d)          the Appellant's major business activity is providing take-out gourmet food and catering services; e)          at all material times, the Appellant advertised itself as a caterer; f)           at all material times, the Appellant provided supplies that were zero-rated and taxable at the standard rate of 7%; g)          at all material times, the Appellant's supplies taxable at 7% included:             i)           the delivery of non-frozen meals;             ii)          sandwiches and soups;             iii)          desserts and cookies;             iv)         party trays; and             v)          catering services; h)          for the Assessment Period, the Appellant filed its GST returns reporting GST of $1,860.51 and input tax credits ("ITCs") of $20,856.46, claiming net refunds of $18,995.95, as detailed in Schedule "B"; i)           by Notice of Assessment numbered 11CU2000256, dated September 18, 2001, the Minister assessed the Appellant for under-reported GST of $16,521.31 in respect of prepared meals (the "Meals"); j)           at all material times, the Appellant prepared and cooked all the food that formed part of the Meals; k)          in respect of the meals, the Appellant offered a menu of seven dishes for a fixed price of $6.50 per dish or serving; l)           the Meals could either be picked up by the customers or delivered for an additional fee; m)         the Meals consisted of refrigerated, fully cooked foods; n)          at all material times, the Meals were not supplies of frozen food; and o)          in preparing the Meals, the Appellant processed and arranged the food to the customer's specifications, and after they were re-heated the Meals were ready to eat. B.         ISSUES TO BE DECIDED 7.          The issue is whether the Meals are taxable at the standard rate of 7 percent. ...

Canada (Customes & Revenue Agency), 2005 FCA 153 Date: 20050502 Docket: A-478-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 153 CORAM:        ROTHSTEIN J.A. ... "I agree.      Marshall Rothstein J.A." "I agree.      ... " FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET:                                                       A-478-04 APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF MADAM JUSTICE SNIDER DATED JUNE 28, 2004 IN DOCHET T-2282-03 STYLE OF CAUSE:                                      DENIS LANNO and CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY PLACE OF HEARING:                                Toronto, Ontario                                             DATE OF HEARING:                                   April 27, 2005 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:             SHARLOW J.A. ...

Reasons for Judgment Teskey, J. [1]            The Appellant S & C Ross Enterprises Ltd. ... The Queen, 2001 DTC 921 (" Criterion ") and Bruce E. Morley Law Corporation v. ... Burch COUNSEL OF RECORD: For the Appellant:                 Name:                                Douglas C. ...

DROIT [acte – d’un magistrat] (official) report, record [d’un agent de police] (police            report). 2.       ... BILODEAU & FILS LTÉE v CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY   PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, QuEbec   DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 4, 2014   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT BY: ANNIS J.   DATED: APRIL 14, 2014   APPEARANCES: Jean-Claude Beauchamp   for the applicant   Dominique Guimond   for the respondent   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Jean-Claude Beauchamp Advocate Montréal, Quebec   for the applicant   Dominique Guimond Advocate Montréal, Quebec for the respondent           ...

Lamarnic & J Ltd. v. The Queen, 2022 TCC 35 Dockets: 2020-1939(GST)APP BETWEEN: LAMARNIC & J LTD., Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent.   ... E-15, as amended (the “ ETA ”), in respect of the reporting period of October 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 is dismissed, without costs. ... E-15 (the “ ETA ”). That sought objection concerns the Minister’s assessment of an HST return for the reporting period October 2, 2011 to December 11, 2011 (“Q4 2011 Period”). ...

It encompasses a number of design tools to duplicate the various features of any paper form such as:-                Lines-                Boxes-                Arcs and circles-                Texts and text formats-                Tables-                Check boxes-                Buttons-                Data fields. ... COURT FILE NO.:                                                 2000-3621(IT)I STYLE OF CAUSE:                                               Nashen & Nashen Consultants Inc. and                                                                                                 Her Majesty the Queen PLACE OF HEARING:                                         Montréal, Québec DATE OF HEARING:                                           May 15 and 22, 2001 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:      The Honourable Judge C.H. ... The new definition applies to work performed after February 27, 1995. [2]           Section 18.1 of the Tax Court of Canada Act. [3]           Exhibit A-3, unmarked page 6. [4]           Mr. ...

Bocock Appearances:   Counsel for the Appellant: Rod A. Vanier Counsel for the Respondent: Christopher Kitchen   JUDGMENT 1.      ... FRANCIS, Appellant, and   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent.   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT I.                    ... Stranded  Disbursements 2002 2003 2004   Total Disallowed $82,834 $25,677 $52,941     Promotional Expenses 2002 2003 2004   Total Disallowed $6,000 $5,901 $6,000   Re: s.67.1 50% rule $3,000 $2,901 $3,000   Cash Expenditures $3,000 $3,000 $3,000           [5]              The Minister also denied the Partnership’s input tax credits under the ETA in the amount of $10,194 for the Relevant Period (the “Disallowed ITCs”). [6]              For the Relevant Period, the tax returns (the “Original Returns”) for both the Partnership and the Appellants were prepared by Karl Von Bloedau. ...

Madam Justice Sharlow stated at paragraphs 20 and 21: ¶ 20        Counsel for Mr. ... PLACE OF HEARING:         CALGARY, ALBERTA DATE OF HEARING:           March 10, 2005 REASONS FOR ORDER:    THE HONOURABLE MR. ... Curtis Stewart      FOR APPLICANTS Mr. William L. Softley/Ms. Marta Burns            FOR RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Bennett Jones LLP        Calgary, Alberta                                                FOR APPLICANTS John H. ...