Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

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. ...

Section 259 … simply does not lay out any criteria for the exercise of the Minister’s power to designate an entity as a municipality. ...

What mattered at the time … was “the relationship of the person acquiring the [house] to the builder—one of purchase and sale—[…], not the relationship between co-purchasers” (Cheema at para. 94). ...

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. ...

The submission of Zeifmans- that judicial authorization should have been obtained pursuant to s. 231.2(3) given that the requirement extended to the Unnamed Persons – was rejected essentially because there was “no evidence in the record that the Unnamed Persons [we]re a current investigation target.” ...

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. ...