Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

Thus, the note was analogous to a non-recourse mortgage (which the Minister conceded (per para. 30) would not be a contingent liability) so that here “[t]he only uncertainty, as in the case of a mortgage foreclosure, [was] as to the amount of the proceeds from the sale …. ... If the Minister were correct, all liability would be contingent. … [U]ncertainty as to the source from which the liability is to be repaid … does not affect the existence of the liability. ...

In rejecting the Trust’s position that the Calgary branch was deemed under s. 462(2) to be a distinct entity that, thus, was situate outside Quebec, Rowe J stated (at para. 79) that “s. 462(2) is to provide a practical means by which the bank as a whole will be fixed with notice … [and] is premised on the idea that a branch is part of the bank.” In rejecting the trust’s alternative position that the demand was valid even without regard to s. 462(2), he stated (at paras. 85-86, 88): Alberta Ltd. claims that because the Demand letter is sent to Calgary, this where the administrative seizure must take place. … [I]t is a sounder approach to focus on the place where enforcement of the Demand may be sought as the determinative point in characterizing the exercise of the coercive power at issue. ... Given that National Bank operates in Quebec, the Court of Québec could make an order against National Bank for failure to comply with the Demand pursuant to s. 39.2 of the TAA. … It would be absurd if the procedural requirements imposed by s. 462(2) … were understood to affect the ARQ’s authority to issue a formal demand to a bank that operates within its territorial jurisdiction. ...

& W. Paul, Ltd. v. Wheat Commission, [1937] A.C. 139 (H.L.)), unless a statute so authorizes (Re George Edwin Gray (1918), 57 S.C.R. 150). ... However, the underlying rationale is the same as where subordinate legislation is said to be inconsistent with another Act of Parliament ‑‑ there is a presumption that the legislature did not intend to make or empower the making of contradictory enactments. ...

Holt ([2013] UKSC 26) that equity can relieve a tax mistake …. Nor does Pitt v. ... No discretion is afforded the Minister or the Minister’s agents: “They are required to follow [the Act] absolutely, just as taxpayers are also required to obey it as it stands” (Harris …. ...

...

...

...

At the time of entering into the forward, he also monetized about half of his BNS shareholding through a loan from a bank (TD Bank) affiliated with the forward counterparty to which he pledged his shares and the forward contract – but then repaid the loan in 2004. ... MacDonald’s … shares. In the course of arriving at this conclusion, she indicated that: A derivative contract is a hedge if its purpose is to “hedge exposure to a particular financial risk such as the risk posed by volatility” (para. 19) “Purpose is ascertained objectively …. ... (para. 36) Options (along with forwards) were “one of the “two basic types of derivatives” (para. 18), so that the principle that “Gains and losses arising from hedging derivative contracts take on the character of the underlying asset, liability or transaction being hedged …. ...

., 2021 SCC 30, [2021] 2 S.C.R. 571-- summary under Interpretation/Definition Provisions Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Interpretation/Definition Provisions detailed listing of items covered in the 2nd part of a means and includes definition had a limiting effect In commenting on the means and includes definition of a security interest in s. 224(1.3), Côté J stated (at para. 63): I agree with [Justice Rothstein in Caisse populaire Desjardins de l’Est de Drummond] … that the list of examples provided is not exhaustive. However, the examples remain illustrative of the types of interests that Parliament had in mind and are clearly united by a common theme or class because Parliament employed a compound “means... and includes” structure to establish its definition: “ security interest means any interest in, or for civil law any right in, property that secures payment or performance of an obligation and includes... ”. ...

He then stated (at paras 62, 63, 64, 73 and 76): … [A] demand for payment by the Crown does not “crystallize” the amount of the debtor’s or the secured creditor’s liability to the Crown. That liability is determined by the amount deemed to be held in the subsection (1) trust which in turn determines the extent to which property of the debtor is deemed to be held pursuant to the subsection (3) trust. … Subsection (1.1) provides that at or after the time of bankruptcy, subsection (1) does not apply to any amounts that were collected on account of tax prior to that time. ... Subsection 67(2) makes it clear that Parliament intended to do away with the deemed trusts in bankruptcy. … By eliminating these trusts in bankruptcy, Parliament put the Crown on the same footing as unsecured creditors. ...