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

Russell J further stated (at paras. 36-37): [W]hether … false statements or omissions in a return justify a subsection 163(2) penalty is determinable at the time the return is filed. ...

. … Here, I find that 240 Ontario did have responsibility at law to make payments to IB from available funds, such responsibility arising from IB’s ownership of and authority over 240 Ontario. ...

Furthermore, the evidence presented (including by one of the vendors called by the Crown), including the high degree of leverage used to construct the building and the short time of ownership after major construction problems had been finally resolved, indicated that the construction and sale of the home had occurred as an adventure in the nature of trade – so that they were builders, and the sale was subject to HST. ...

Sommerfeldt J found on the evidence (even though the vendors were not parties to the case) that the vendors had never occupied the home as a residence and had sold the home as an adventure in the nature of trade – so that they were builders, and the sale was subject to HST. ...

. … Similar to the Cheema decision, it is the relationship between the purchaser and the seller that is relevant to the entitlement to the NRRPR rebate, not the relationship between the co-purchasers. ...

Bocock J concluded (at para. 35) that the “annual award was paid with the dominant characteristic of furtherance of the education and learning of … the PDF,” so that the PDF was not an employee. ...

Bocock J concluded (at para. 35) that the “annual award was paid with the dominant characteristic of furtherance of the education and learning of … the PDF,” so that the PDF was not an employee. ...

He stated (at paras. 21-22): … In statutory interpretation, there is a presumption of consistent expression, one part of which states different words have different meanings. ...

He then stated (at paras. 79-80): Although I will not issue an order that would require the Appellant, in response to any of the Disputed Questions, to disclose information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, I will note that … unless the Appellant furnishes the information in writing to the Respondent no later than ten days after this Appeal is set down for trial, the Appellant will require leave of the trial judge [under Rule 96(1)], in order to introduce that information at trial. ...

The Minister’s position was that LBL sold the tobacco products to such third-party customers who were not status Indians, with MacNaughton being compensated for her involvement in this scheme through volume rebates – so that such sales were not exempted under s. 87 of the Indian Act. ...