Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

They had been ordered with the winches from André Brusselle Limited (Brusselle) of Belgium, but the latter had in turn ordered them from Laurence Scott & Electromotors Limited of Norwich, England, and this firm made the shipment direct to the respondent while the winches were shipped separately by Brusselle from Belgium. ... [Page 26] MacMillan & Bloedel (Alberni) Ltd. [1], Hall J. speaking for the Court said (at p. 371): It was also urged on behalf of the said respondent that there was in fact no evidence that newsprint machines of the size or speed of the one imported were being made in Canada at any time material to the time when MacMillan & Bloedel contracted to purchase the newsprint machine in question and on the question of the relevant time urged that the date for the determination of the rights of the parties should be taken as the date that said respondent entered into the formal contract to purchase, namely, August 25, 1955. ... Solicitors for the intervenant: Hume, Martin & Timmins, Toronto.   [1] [1965] S.C.R. 366. [2] [1968] S.C.R. 684. [3] [1965] S.C.R. 366. ...

Solicitors for the respondent: Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, Toronto.   [1] [1974] 2 F.C. 52. [2] [1974] 1 F.C. 215. [3] [1971] F.C. 213. ...

That the provisions of the Customs Tariff of 1897 (60 & 61. Vict ch. 16), under which this duty was collected, are ultra vires as conflicting with provisions of the Imperial Merchants' Shipping Act of 1894. 2ndly. ... The Interpretation Act expressly decrees that every Act and every provision or enactment thereof (including Acts imposing taxes), shall be deemed remedial * * * and shall accordingly receive such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as will best insure the attainment of the object of the Act and of such provision or enactment according to its true intent, meaning and spirit. ... " Minnie M." was a foreign built steamer purchased by the respondent company and bought by it under a provisional certificate granted by the British Consul at Chicago, in the United States of America, to the Port of Sault Ste. ...

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR QUEBEC Tax law — Personal income tax — Payment in recognition of long service — Sick leave plan — Accumulation of unused days — Payment made in accordance with a collective agreement — Special assessment rate — Provincial Income Tax Act, R.S.Q. 1964, c. 69, s. 45, replaced by An Act to Amend the Provincial Income Tax Act, 1965 (Que.), c. 26, s. 12. ... Solicitors for the appellant: Tessier, Corbeil & Bourbeau, Montreal. ...

To determine this, it is necessary to examine the facts with care. ’ ’ Similarly, Lord Warrington of Clyffe, in the case of Salisbury House Estate, Ltd. v. ... It was pointed out in the judgment of the Lord President at p. 215 that: ‘ The purpose which informed the Company was to salve something from the wreck of a type of trading enterprise which when the Company was formed was not ‘dormant’ but dead, by selling the separate flats in the only possible fashion for the benefit of the firm’s creditors and of the beneficiaries of the estates of the deceased partners.’’ ...

The description of the property, as contained in the notarial deed of sale, included the statement: ‘““AVEC bâtisses dessus érigées, portant les numéros civiques 4474 et 4477 du dit Boulevard Sir Wilfrid Laurier, et toutes dépendances y attachées. ’ ’ Formal conveyance of the immovable property and the shares was made pursuant to an option contained in a letter dated August 3, 1962 which reads: Montréal, le 3 aout 1962 Monsieur Marc Masson Bienvenu, 210 ouest rue St-Jacques, Montréal, P.Q. ... Ltd. me seront rem boursées: $ 56,869 somme totale que je devrait recevoir par chèque visé $650,000 Lors de la clôture de cette transaction, je conviens d’acheter de La Maison Bienvenu Limitée et de payer par chèque visé, 12,500 actions de Corporation d’Expansion Financière un prix de $20.00 chacune, soit $250,000. ...

(all concur): — Two applications have been made by the Deputy Attorney-General of Canada (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the applicant’’) for leave to appeal to this Court, pursuant to Section 41 of the Supreme Court Act. ... The relevant provisions of Section 126A are as follows: “126A. (1) In this section (b) ‘custodian’ means a person in whose custody a package is placed pursuant to subsection (3); (e) ‘solicitor-client privilege’ means the right, if any, that a person has in a superior court in the province where the matter arises to refuse to disclose an oral or documentary communication on the ground that the communication is one passing between him and his lawyer in professional confidence. (3) Where an officer is about to examine or seize a document in the possession of a lawyer and the lawyer claims that a named client of his has a solicitor-client privilege in respect of that document, the officer shall, without examining or making copies of the document, (a) seize the document and place it, together with any other document in respect of which the lawyer at the same time makes the same claim on behalf of the same client, in a package and suitably seal and identify the package; and (b) place the package in the custody of the sheriff of the district or county in which the seizure was made or, if the officer and the lawyer agree in writing upon a person to act as custodian, in the custody of such person. (4) Where a document has been seized and placed in custody under subsection (3), the client, or the lawyer on behalf of the client, may (a) within 14 days from the day the document was so placed in custody, apply, upon 8 days’ notice of motion to the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, to a judge for an order (i) fixing a day (not later than 21 days after the date of the order) and place for the determination of the question whether the client has a solicitor-client privilege in respect of the document, and (ii) requiring the custodian to produce the document to the judge at that time and place; (b) serve a copy of the order on the Deputy Attorney General of Canada and the custodian within 6 days of the day on which it was made, and, within the same time, pay to the custodian the estimated expenses of transporting the document to and from the place of hearing and of safeguarding it; and (c) if he has proceeded as authorized by paragraph (b), apply, at the appointed time and place, for an order determining the question. (5) An application under paragraph (c) of subsection (4) shall be heard in camera, and on the application (a) the Judge may, if he considers it necessary to determine the question, inspect the document and, if he does so, he shall ensure that it is repackaged and resealed; and (b) the judge shall decide the matter summarily and, (i) if he is of opinion that the client has a solicitorclient privilege in respect of the document, shall order the custodian to deliver the document to the lawyer, and (ii) if he is of opinion that the client does not have a solicitor-client privilege in respect of the document, shall order the custodian to deliver the document to the officer or some other person designated by the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Taxation, and he shall, at the same time, deliver concise reasons in which he shall describe the nature of the document without divulging the details thereof. (7) The custodian shall (a) deliver the document to the lawyer (i) in accordance with a consent executed by the officer or by or on behalf of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada or the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Taxation, or (ii) in accordance with an order of a judge under this section; or (b) deliver the document to the officer or some other person designated by the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Taxation (i) in accordance with a consent executed by the lawyer or the client, or (ii) in accordance with an order of a judge under this section. (11) The custodian shall not deliver a document to any person except. in accordance with an order of a judge or a consent under this section or except to any officer or servant of the custodian for the purposes of safeguarding the document. (14) Where a lawyer has, for the purpose of subsection (2) or (3), made a claim that a named client of his has a solicitorclient privilege in respect of information or a document, he shall at the same time communicate to the Minister or some person duly authorized to act for the Minister the address of the client last known to him so that the Minister may endeavour to advise the client of the claim of privilege that has been made on his behalf and may thereby afford him an opportunity, if it is practicable within the time limited by this section, of waiving the claim of privilege before the matter comes on to be decided by a judge or other tribunal. ’ ’ I agree with the view expressed by Lord, J.A., in the Court of Appeal, that, in cases to which the section is applicable, 4 Section 126A is a complete code in itself for deciding the question of solicitor-client privilege relative to documents of a client in the possession of a solicitor.” ...

A clause in the letters patent which has been regarded as affecting the liability of the respondent reads: ‘ 1 And it is further ordained and declared that the company shall be prohibited from declaring dividends and shall also be further prohibited from distributing any profits during hostilities or during the period that the company is required to carry on elementary training under the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan.” ... Section 11(1) (b) reads: “(1) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a), (b) and (h) of subsection (1) of section 12, the following amounts may be deducted in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year (b) such amount as an allowance in respect of an oil or gas well, mine or timber limit, if any, as is allowed to the taxpayer by regulation,’’ Subsections (1) and (4) of Regulation No. 1201 provide that: “(1) Where the taxpayer operates an oil or gas well or where the taxpayer is a person described as the trustee in subsection (1) of section 73 of the Act, the deduction allowed for a taxation year is 3314 per cent of the profits of the taxpayer for the year reasonably attributable to the production of oil or gas from the well. ’ ’ ‘ 1 (4) In computing the profits reasonably attributable to the production of oil or gas for the purpose of this section a deduction shall be made equal to the amounts, if any, deducted from income under the provisions of section 538 of chapter 25 of the Statutes of 1949, Second Session, in respect of the well.” Section 53 is as follows: “ (1) A corporation whose principal business is the production, refining or marketing of petroleum or petroleum products or the exploring and drilling for oil or natural gas, may deduct, in computing its income for the purposes of The Income Tax Act, the lesser of (a) the aggregate of the drilling and exploration costs, including all general geological and geophysical expenses, incurred by it, directly or indirectly, on or in respect of exploring or drilling for oil and natural gas in Canada (i) during the taxation year, and (ii) during previous taxation years, to the extent that they were not deductible in computing income for a previous taxation year, or (b) of that aggregate an amount equal to its income for the taxation year (i) if no deduction were allowed under paragraph (b) of subsection one of section eleven of the said Act, and (ii) if no deduction were allowed under this subsection, minus the deduction allowed by section twenty-seven of the said Act.’’ ...

He then went on to say this (at p. 265): Nor do I think that the dicta of LORD ESHER, M.R., and FRY, L.J., can be relied on as laying down that in no circumstances can the court command production of documents from any person other than a witness in the case. … The power to command the production of documents is quite general, and the Act does not say that they can be required to be produced only by a witness giving oral evidence. ... It reads as follows: 178.16 … (3.1) A private communication that has been intercepted and that is admissible as evidence may be admitted in any criminal proceeding or in any civil proceeding or other matter whatever respecting which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, whether or not the criminal proceeding or the civil proceeding or other matter relates to the offence specified in the authorization pursuant to which the communication was intercepted. ... Solicitors for the applicant: Field & Field, Edmonton. Solicitors for the respondents: Macdonald, Spitz, Edmonton.   ...

. *** (19) An amalgamated company shall, for the purposes of the other provisions of this Act, be deemed to be a company incorporated under this Act within the meaning of clause (g) of section 2, so far as the nature of an amalgamated company will permit. ... Solicitors for the appellants: Arnold & Crawford, Calgary. Solicitors for the respondent: Prothroe, Gibbs, McCruden & Hilland, Calgary. [1] (1964), 47 W.W.R. 257, 43 D.L.R. (2d) 508. [2] (1964), 47 W.W.R. 257, 43 D.L.R. (2d) 508. [3] (1964), 47 W.W.R. 257, 43 D.L.R. (2d) 508. [4] [1961] 1 Ch. 270. [5] [1938] O.R. 123. [6] [1921] 2 K.B. 608. [7] [1935] O.R. 56. [8] [1951] Ch. 112. [9] [1940] A.C. 412. [10] [1937] O.R. 924. [11] [1944] 3 W.W.R. 145 at 153. [12] [1963] S.C.R. 144. [13] [1962] O.R. 705. [14] [1941] S.C.R. 317. [15] [1944] S.C.R. 69. [16] [1944] S.C.R. 385. ...