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

PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario   DATE OF HEARING: June 11, 2019   JUDGMENT and reasons: KANE J.   DATED: AUGUST 2, 2019   APPEARANCES: Mr. Gary Daniel Mr. Matthew Frontini    For The Applicant   None   For The Respondent   Mr.  ... Shane Hardy   For The Intervener   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Deeth Williams Wall LLP Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario   For The Applicant   Oyen Wiggs Green & Mutala LLP Barristers and Solicitors Vancouver, British Columbia   For The Respondent   Cassels Brock and Blackwell LLP Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario   For The Intervener     ...

Dock Edge + Inc. v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 11 Docket: 2016-539(IT)G BETWEEN: DOCK EDGE + INC., Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent.   ... Russell” Russell J.   Citation: 2019TCC11 Date: 20190116 Docket: 2016-539(IT)G BETWEEN: DOCK EDGE + INC., Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent.   ... Drouin Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada     ...

BUREAU BARRISTER & SOLICITOR INCORPORATED, Applicant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent.   ... Except as otherwise indicated, statutory references herein are provisions of the ETA. [2]   Under the marginal heading, “When order to be made”, subsection 305(5) provides: (5)   No order shall be made under this section unless (a)   the application is made within one year after the expiration of the time otherwise limited by this Part for appealing; and (b)   the person demonstrates that (i)   within the time otherwise limited by this Part for appealing, (A)   the person was unable to act or to give a mandate to act in the person’s name, or (B)   the person had a bona fide intention to appeal, (ii)   given the reasons set out in the application and the circumstances of the case, it would be just and equitable to grant the application, (iii)   the application was made as soon as circumstances permitted it to be made, and (iv)   there are reasonable grounds for appealing from the assessment. [3]   The respondent asserts that the following four requirements specified in subsection 305(5) were unmet: subparagraph 305(5)(b)(i) – the applicant must demonstrate that within the 90-day period for appealing … it had a bona fide intention to appeal; subparagraph 305(5)(b)(ii) – given the reasons set out in the application and the circumstances of the case, it would be just and equitable to grant the application; subparagraph 305(5)(b)(iii) – the application was made as soon as circumstances permitted; and subparagraph 305(5)(b)(iv) – there are reasonable grounds for appealing … Factual overview: [4]   At the hearing, an amended affidavit of Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) officer S.  ... Drouin Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada     ...

Rip" J.T.C.C. [1]               85 DTC 568. [2]               [1971] Tax A.B.C. 717, 71 DTC 476. [3]               66 DTC 714, 42 Tax A.B.C. 174. [4]               Paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Act. [5]               Section 67 of the Act. [6]               R.S.C. 1927, c. 97. ... Electric, supra at 1028. [23]             (1957), 57 DTC 1055 at 1062. [24]             (1947), 3 DTC 1090. [25]             Edwin C. ... In any event Iacobucci J. rejected that argument. [27]             [1988] 2 S.C.R. 175 at 189. [28]             Symes, supra at 6014. [29]             Ibid. [30]             See R. v. ...

& F. and Sumas, dated April 16, 1981. Exhibit A-6 — Form letter from M. ... & F. The "distribution rights’ applied to a larger area — all of Canada — and indeed export markets (see Exhibit A-5). ... & F., so that M. & F. had no further involvement with that company. ...

Trew Security & Communication Ltd. v. M.N.R., docket 97-1887-UI Date: 19991026 Dockets: 97-1887-UI; 97-195-CPP; 97-2084-UI; 97-218-CPP; 97-2085-UI; 97-219-CPP; BETWEEN: TREW SECURITY AND COMMUNICATIONS LTD., PATRICIA WALLACE, DOUGLAS WALLACE, Appellants, and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Respondent, Reasons for Judgment MacLatchy, D.J.T.C.C. [1] These appeals were heard on common evidence at Toronto, Ontario on July 8, 1999. [2] The opening statements of these appeals clarified the positions of the parties. [3] The Respondent conceded that the appeals filed by Douglas Wallace and Patricia Wallace for unemployment insurance purposes should be allowed as both Douglas and Patricia Wallace were at all relevant times owners and each controlled more than 40% of the voting shares of Trew Security and Communications Ltd., the Payor. The Appellants were not engaged in insurable employment within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Act (the " Act ") and Employment Insurance Act (the " Amended Act ") for the 1995 taxation year as each Appellant controlled more than 40% of the voting shares of the Payor with the result that the employment was excepted by paragraph 3(2)(d) of the Act and paragraph 5(2)(b) of the Amended Act. [4] No amount of the unemployment insurance premiums or employment insurance premiums assessed the Payor relate to the employment of either Patricia or Douglas Wallace as it was determined above that their employment with the Payor during both 1995 and 1996 taxation years was not insurable employment. [5] The Payor applied to the Respondent for reconsideration of the assessments of October 16, 1996. [6] By letter dated September 10, 1997, the Respondent informed the Payor that it had been determined that the Payor's workers (Robbie Robert Wallace and Wayne Hilts) were employed pursuant to a contract of service and, accordingly, the Respondent confirmed the assessments of October 16, 1996. [7] In making his decision, the Respondent relied on the following facts set out in paragraph 11 of the Amended Reply to the Notice of Appeal in the case of Trew Security and Communications Ltd. (97-1887(UI)): "(a) the Appellant is an incorporated business of which, at all material times, Douglas Wallace and Patricia Wallace were shareholders; (b) Patricia and Douglas Wallace are married to each other; (c) the Appellant operates a small service business involved in the installation of burglar and fire alarms, central vac, television and telephone systems and intercoms in personal residences; (d) during the 1995 taxation year, Patricia and Douglas Wallace were severally paid by cheque the amount of $36,000.00 as management fees; (e) at all relevant times, Douglas Wallace owned and controlled more than 40% of the voting shares of the Appellant; (f) the Appellant engaged Robbie Wallace and Wayne Hilts as workers (the "Workers"); (g) the Workers were employed by the Appellant pursuant to contracts of service. ... Although called a "management fee", such payment really constituted pensionable employment and within the meaning of subsection 27(5) and paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Canada Pension Plan (the " Plan ") as amended. ...

Western Leaseholds & Western Minerals v. Minister of National Revenue, [1958] CTC 257, 58 DTC 1128 CAMERON, J. ... A.— Loans. ’ ’ Then as a result of undertakings given at the examination for discovery to produce further information, Mr. ... By a letter-agreement dated December 31, 1947 (Exhibit 19) between Minerals and Leaseholds, it was agreed that Leaseholds should retain the $250,000 option money paid by Imperial and that in respect of the Imperial agreement, Minerals would grant to Leaseholds an exclusive option to purchase from time to time up to 7 per cent of its royalty on the following basis: Per acre On the first 10,000 acres $2.63 for each 1% purchased '' 66 second 7 “ PA 10 é¢ “ “ ‘ ‘ [ar 4 third [ar {C 1.58 '' [4 H “ ** balance of acreage 1.05 “ “ “ The only clear evidence relating to these payments of $34,850.18 and $199,544.55 is found in a paragraph of Exhibit 32—an agreement between Minerals and Leaseholds dated December 30, 1950, and called ‘‘An Agreement of Settlement and Adjustments’’. ...

Grandin Park Barber Shop & Beauty Parlour LTD v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2121, 84 DTC 1071 Sarchuk, TCJ:—Grandin Park Barber Shop & Beauty Parlour Ltd. ... Subsequently on April 26, 1978 the appellant acquired a 34 per cent undivided interest in a parcel of land in Caroline, Alberta, described as Pt NE 1/4 — 13 — 36 — 6 — W — SthM (the “Caroline property”) for a price to the appellant of $40,800. ... The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines replace at page 951: replace — “Put back in place; take place of, succeed, be substituted for; (in pass) be succeeded or have one’s or its place filled by, be superseded; fill up place of (with, by), find or provide substitute for.” and substitute at page 1151: substitute — “1. ...

’ ’ Throughout the period mentioned there were three issued shares of Career Girl Store Limited (hereafter referred to as Career Girl) all of which were beneficially owned by Allied Business Supervisions Limited (hereafter referred to as Allied). ... But there was no question asking: ‘ ‘ Did beneficiaries of a trust ‘control’ or ‘have a controlling interest’ in the company?’’ ... In truth, the articles of association constitute a contract between the company and the shareholders which every shareholder is entitled to insist upon being carried out. ’ ’ That an article can restrict the right of a mere majority to bind the minority by an ordinary resolution appears from Quin & Axtens Ltd. et al. v. ...

In those reassessments, the Minister levied the following federal penalties: Taxation Date of Year (Re)Assessment Penalties 1971 24 November 1977 $ 80.75 3 March 1978 $1,481.96 24 May 1979 $ 100.83 1972 24 November 1977 $ 631.23 3 March 1978 $ 822.83 24 May 1979 $ 643.85 1973 24 November 1977 $2,789.09 3 March 1978 $4,451.77 24 May 1979 $2,948.87 1974 24 November 1977 $2,570.56 3 March 1978 $3,460.75 24 May 1979 $2,681.11 1975 24 November 1977 $ 543.08 3 March 1978 $ 970.01 24 May 1979 $ 580.19 (k) The Appellant appropriated to his own benefit unreported revenue of MidNorth in the amounts of $2,807.41, $11,573.36, $18,402.72 and $900 respectively in his 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975 taxation years. ... The same two persons (/ and plus Alan Hill (were partners in NIM Disposals. ... March 12 1973 5815 $ 1,229.30 BG; BL 2. March 26 1973 5861 2,000.00 BG; BL 3. ...