Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

Warren J noted (at para. 22): RJR-MacDonald … [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 … sets out the three-part test for determining whether a court should exercise its discretion to grant an interlocutory injunction: is there a serious issue to be tried; would irreparable harm result if the injunction were not granted; and is the balance of convenience in favour of granting the interlocutory injunction or denying it. ... She found (at para. 35) that she was: satisfied that the Federation has established at least two types of irreparable harm that would result if the injunction sought is not granted: • if confidential or privileged information is disclosed as a result of legislation that is ultimately found to be unconstitutional, individual clients will be irreparably harmed by the loss of professional secrecy, which cannot be undone, and the prospect of that occurring will have a chilling effect on the ability of individual clients to consult with their lawyers fully and freely pending a final determination of the constitutional challenge; and • the potential for the unconstitutional reporting of confidential and privileged information, and the conflicts of interest between lawyers and their clients that will arise as a result of potentially unconstitutional legislation, would irrevocably damage the solicitor-client relationship and harm the public interest by undermining the public’s confidence in an independent bar. ...

Logan J observed (at para. 89): There is just no doubt that an Australian national cannot hold a working holiday visa issued under the Migration Act …. ... A resident “national” of Australia undertaking the same work as did Ms Addy … would have the benefit of the tax free threshold. … Materially, so far as the applicable rate of tax is concerned, the Rates Act distinguishes between individuals on the basis of the type of visa which that individual holds. ... That is exactly the type of discrimination which is prohibited by Art 25(1) …. ...

Canada, 2019 FCA 147-- summary under Supply Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 123- Subsection 123(1)- Supply no supplies between PEs of the same person in the absence of s. 132(4) Noël C.J indicated (at para. 42) that s. 132(4) dealt with the situation where “two permanent establishments are involved – one in Canada and one outside Canada – neither of which are legal persons on their own account, with the result that each had to be deemed to be a person that is separate from the other in order for cross-border supplies between them to be recognized.” ...

Côté J, for the three dissenting Justices, indicated (at para. 131): While the Minister generally has no discretion in determining a taxpayer’s liability … the power the Minister has under s. 247(10) is not permissive when a downward adjustment is sought and/or established … [and] must be exercised in order to determine the amount of tax liability. ... Dow’s theory would lower the “bar by interpreting s. 18.5 to exclude the Federal Court’s jurisdiction not just where a decision is subject to an express statutory appeal, but also where it is merely captured by an appeal provision by implication” – which was “likely to provoke litigation about which discretionary decisions are caught, implicitly, by statutory appeal provisions in other settings” (para. 8). Given Dow’s acknowledgement that, if the Minister did not issue an assessment after she made a discretionary decision under s. 247(10), her decision could be challenged by way of judicial review in the Federal Court, this implied “an untenable solution in which the Federal Court would retain its judicial review jurisdiction over discretionary decisions by the Minister as a general rule, but it would lose its jurisdiction to conduct judicial review of those same discretionary decisions if they are followed by assessments” – which raised the “difficulty of there being two different courts — applying two different standards of review — with jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions under s. 247(10), depending on whether or not an assessment is issued after the decision is made” (para. 95). ...

Before agreeing with the position of the Minister that the “gratuity” was part of the consideration for the supply under the contract, Bocock J referred inter alia to the finding in N DP Co Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioner, [1988] VATTR 40 that: [V]oluntary gratuities are not subject to VAT because voluntary gratuities are: ‘[N]o part of the contract that the customer should pay a charge for service ….’ Before dismissing the taxpayer’s appeal, he stated (at paras. 21, 27-28): [T]he inclusion of an obligation as part of the bargain, cannot be viewed as a gift but part of the consideration. … Subsection 133(b) combined with subsection 138(a) … suggests that tips included in an agreement are part of the overall supply of prepared meals, which is subject to HST. … The ETA defines “consideration” as “any amount that is payable for a supply by operation of law.” ...

Ahmed J found that the decision was unreasonable, stating (at 23-25): … [T]he LAS Officer’s opinion letter lacks any real analysis of … whether the exception to statute barred dates in section 152(4)(a)(i) could be applied. … [This] is an inadequate analysis. ... In light of the conclusory analysis which does not conduct any textual, contextual, and purposive analysis as the Supreme Court of Canada requires, I agree with the Applicant that the decision is unreasonable. … ...

Bédard J. stated (at para. 64): The Latin maxim " expressio unius est exclusio alterius ", also known as the principle of implied exclusion, states that where the legislator causes a provision to apply to a number of categories but fails to include one that that could easily have been included, one may infer that the legislator intended to exclude that category from the application of the provision. ...

See summaries under s. 12(1)(x), s. 9 – compensation payments, and s. 9 – computation of profit. ...

In the course of upholding the finding that this was a misrepresentation attributable to neglect, thus allowing the taxpayer to be assessed beyond the normal reassessment period (see summary under s. 152(4)(a)(i)), Webb JA disagreed with the trial judge's statement that "if the Minister establishes that there is a right to reassess after the expiration of the normal period, the onus will then shift to the taxpayer" to show that the failure to include the amount in the return was not due to a misrepresentation attributable to neglect, carelessness or wilful default, stating (at paras. 24-25): [T]he onus is on the Minister to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the taxpayer or the person filing the return … has made a misrepresentation; and … such misrepresentation is attributable to neglect, carelessness, or willful default.... ...

. … [C]ertainty is an essential ingredient. … [U]nless the agreement is contrary to public order, the contract is valid and binding. ...