Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

Rolls Ct.) as cited by the Supreme Court in James Richardson & Sons Ltd. v. ...

To carry out these functions, it acquired a D8K Caterpillar Tractor, a Caterpillar 235 Excavator and a P & M 1250 Excavator, all of which were so used exclusively, and it claimed investment tax credits of $3,825, $2,042 and $15,830 in the 1977, 1978 and 1979 taxation years respectively. ...

As for the word " property", it too has been widely interpreted. ...

In deciding the main point the learned trial judge concluded (at 478; DTC 6504) that: “There were no tuition fees charged by any of the three corporations” and that “... no material consideration and no tuition fees were charged or given”. ...

I would add also that, in my view, any question as to the relevancy and admissibility of these documents at trial is a matter to be decided by the judge presiding thereat. 1 41. (1) Subject to the provisions of any other Act and to subsection (2), when a Minister of the Crown certifies to any court by affidavit that a document belongs to a class or contains information which on grounds of a public interest specified in the affidavit should be withheld from production and discovery, the court may examine the document and order its production and discovery to the parties, subject to such restrictions or conditions as it deems appropriate, if it concludes in the circumstances of the case that the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighs in importance the public interest specified in the affidavit. (2) When a Minister of the Crown certifies to any court by affidavit that the production or discovery of a document or its contents would be injurious to international relations, national defence or security, or to federal-provincial relations, or that it would disclose a confidence of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, discovery and production shall be refused without any examination of the document by the court. 2 + 241. (1) Except as authorized by this section, no official or authorized person shall (a) knowingly communicate or knowingly allow to be communicated to any person any information obtained by or on behalf of the Minister for the purposes of this Act, or (b) knowingly allow any person to inspect or to have access to any book, record, writing, return or other document obtained by or on behalf of the Minister for the purposes of this Acct. (2) Notwithstanding any other Act or law, no official or authorized person shall be required, in connection with any legal proceedings, (a) to give evidence relating to any information obtained by or on behalf of the Minister for the purposes of this Act, or (b) to produce any book, record, writing, return or other document obtained by or on behalf of the Minister for the purposes of this Act. ...

In construing a penal section there is the unimpeachable authority of Lord Esher in Tuck & Sons v Priester (1887), 19 QBD 629, to the effect that if the words of a penal section are capable of an interpretation that would, and one that would not, inflict the penalty, the latter must prevail. ...

It deals primarily in lines of equipment manufactured by Deere & Co., an American corporation. ...

Attorney General [11] where it was said that trusts for political purposes: include, inter alia, trusts of which a direct and principal purpose is either — (I) to further the interests of a particular political party; or (ii) to procure changes in the laws of this country; or (iii) to procure changes in the laws of a foreign country; or (iv) to procure a reversal of government policy or of particular decisions of governmental authorities in this country; or (v) to procure a reversal of government policy or of particular decisions of governmental authorities in a foreign country. ...

As to whether the award of damages is properly to be regarded as profit from business for purposes of sections 3 and 9(1) of the Income Tax Act, I am of the view that the rule stated by Diplock, LJ, as he then was, in London & Thames Haven Oil Wharves, Ltd v Attwooll, [1967] 2 All ER 124 at 134 ff, is to be applied. ...

It is to be noted that, having purchased the heater for $197, the appellant used it as a source of profit by parting with possession of it to a customer for a net rental of $2.50 or $2.99 per month and that, in addition to parting with possession of the heater during that period, to earn that rental, the appellant had to incur certain expenses, namely, (a) it had to install the heater at the beginning of each lease, which involved, in 1966, labour $27.05 wiring (labour & material) 22.45 material 14.90 transportation 12.00 Hydro inspection 3.00 overhead and profit 5.60 $85.00 and, in 1967, similar amounts totalling $100; (b) it had to service the heaters during the term of the lease; (c) it had to remove the heater at the end of the lease; and (d) it had, in certain cases, to pay the manufacturer either $28 or $36 for reconditioning the heater between leases. ...