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

...

...

...

Its jurisdiction does not extend to judicial review of decisions of the Minister under discretionary relief provisions of the Act …. ... The problem with this reasoning is that this is exactly what the taxpayer relief provisions are intended to do — enable the Minister to provide relief from strict filing requirements. ... … …I would remit [the s. 220(3) matter] to the Minister for full consideration and decision. … ...

In confirming that the ecological gift instead was made in 2008 when the gifted property was disposed of, Noël CJ stated (at paras 39, 42, 44): [W]hen property is gifted … the disposition takes place when ownership of the gifted property is transferred from the donor to the donee … The question as to when a “gift was made” for purposes of paragraph 110.1(1)(d) is fully answered by paragraph 38(a.2). That paragraph provides, by referring specifically to ecological gifts, that “the disposition is the making of a gift” …. This is consistent with the wording used in subparagraph 69(1)(b)(ii) which speaks of a disposition “by way of gift inter vivos ”…. ...

In dismissing the Crown’s appeal, Woods JA stated (at paras. 35, 37-39, and 42): … Parliament’s intent must override O.A. Brown where legislative intent is clear as it is in the provisions applicable in this case. … The particular circumstances of this case clearly call into question the application of O.A. ... Further, the property has only one use – to move teeth or jaws. It is also relevant that the appliances provided to patients are almost invariably accompanied by orthodontic services. … [T]he listing of orthodontic appliances in Schedule VI would have very limited application if the Crown’s position were correct. ...

In rejecting the second submission, Pelletier JA stated (at paras. 30-32): … Judicial comity is a doctrine which seeks to promote uniformity and predictability in the law. ... As a result, the use of the expression “horizontal stare decisis ” to refer to judicial comity is misleading precisely because judicial comity is not enforced by courts of appeal while stare decisis is. As a result, the Federal Court committed no legal error when it declined to follow the Lin case. … The Federal Court came to its own conclusion that the necessary criteria had been satisfied by reference to the documents themselves. ...

She stated (at paras. 54, 56 and 62): The Impugned Provisions … are similar to information automatically provided to the CRA for regulatory purposes (e.g., T4s by employers, T5s by financial institutions, and taxpayers’ annual disclosure of foreign holdings). … It is difficult to see how a seizure contemplated by the Impugned Provisions significantly intrudes into privacy interests, as the appellants appear to suggest. Accordingly, I see no reason in this case to revisit the comment in Jarvis that the entire ITA is a regulatory statute. … Quite simply, the Impugned Provisions are an example of international cooperation in the administration of income tax laws. … ...

The Crown … submitted that “municipal service” is only intended to apply to a service provided by a federal or provincial government when that government is acting as a municipal authority. ... Section 21 … does not provide that a “municipal service” will only be a service provided by a government acting as a municipal authority. Webb JA then stated (at paras 23, 24 and 25): [The Crown’s] argument is essentially that a municipal service can only be a service that a municipality (and not the federal or provincial government) is obligated to provide. … Applying this interpretation to the national park example would mean that for any residents of a national park, for whom no municipality is obligated to provide services, the services provided by the federal government would not be “municipal services” for the purpose of section 21, even though such services would normally be provided by a municipality. … In my view, this result is not the result that Parliament intended and does not take into account that section 21 applies to services provided by a government or a municipality. … Words and Phrases municipal service ...

. … By adopting detailed provisions dealing with representation in the Act, the legislator limited the TCC’s implied power to control who may represent the corporation in their courtroom, especially in proceedings subject to the General Procedure. … [T]he common law/civil law concept that a corporation cannot appear in person because of its very nature strongly suggest[s] that under section 17.1 [of the TCCA], a party who is a corporation must be represented by counsel as defined by subsection 17.1(2). ... First, … there is nothing in section 20 of the Act dealing with this…. ... Even if this were so, … the very first version of this Rule did not attempt to define “in person” vis-à-vis a corporation; rather, it completely rules out the notion of a corporation being able to appear in person Furthermore, even if I assumed that the GP Rule 30(2) as amended in 1993 could be interpreted as meaning that only an officer of the corporation could personify a corporation within the meaning of section 17.1, the TCC Rules Committee could not then subdelegate its jurisdiction to each individual judge by making a right presumably granted unconditionally by the legislator subject to a leave to be granted only “in special circumstances”. … The GP Rule 30(2) in its latest iteration, which appears to enable any individual (including one outside of the corporation, such as its regular accountant) to represent it on leave, could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered a definition of the words “in person” in section 17.1. ...