Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

Finally in 1963, the appellant ceased his efforts when the Council of the Town of Oakville at that time, for reasons unexplained, reversed its support of its plan for rezoning for shopping centre purposes the Finch-Noyes property, and the appellant sold this property to a group of Town of Oakville builders who were shareholders in a company called Atlas Plastics & Products Limited. ...

Bergman, J.A. in Re Lawton, [1945] 4 D.L.R. 8 at 33, had occasion to pose and answer the question ‘‘ What is group insurance”. ...

The appeal is dismissed with costs. 1 * There is only one finding of fact made by the Board of any pos sible significance for which there is no basis in the evidence before this Court to which I should refer. ...

See Plaxton & Varcoe’s Dominion Income Tax, 166. Having said so much I gather from what was said by the respective counsel at bar that they will adjust among themselves the figures of the assessment upon the principle disclosed by the judgment. ...

App. 597, and Singer +. Singer, Can. 8.C.R. vol. 52, p. 447, reject this view and hold that the income belongs to the widow absolutely subject only to an obligation to provide, in her discretion, for the support and maintenance of the children. ...

The method by which the Minister arrived at the cost of $305.90 for the one and one-half lots sold is shown on the statement attached to the re-assessment entitled ‘‘ Evaluation of land costs.” It was first assumed that the cost of the University site of 160 acres was the face value of the 1,000 shares having a par value of $100 each issued in payment therefor — a total of $100,000. ... Thompson, a chartered accountant of Montreal and senior partner in Canada of another well-known accounting firm, Peat, Marwick & Company. ...

., supra, by Martland, J. at p. 354 [p. 222]: “... whether a venture such as we are now considering is, or is not, ‘in the nature of trade”, is whether the operations involved in it are of the same kind, and carried on in the same way, as those which are characteristic of ordinary trading in the line of business in which the venture was made.” ... There was an action for commission, initially by Marriette Agencies Ltd. and later amended to Hopper & Jamieson Limited, of which action there were put in as exhibits an examination for discovery of Hutchinson (Ex. ... R-4, p. 3) Hutchinson testified that he gave a listing to Gillanders Realty at $440,000 and testified, ‘‘ Yes, I told him that I wanted $425,000 net to Georgia Gulf Estates and that we wanted cash to the mortgage’’. ...

S.C. 1948, ¢. 52, it claimed a deduction from its 1951 ineome in respect of the loss incurred by it on its operations for the year 1952. ... In applying the test so expressed to the facts before him, Rowlatt, J., said at p. 276: “... ... One might usefully paraphrase the last clause of the passage above quoted to apply it to this case as follows: ‘‘... that, having been allowed a deduction for wear and tear in the name of capital cost allowance, the respondent is not entitled to a deduction in the name of repairs to restore the same property to its original condition.’’ ...

He was also part owner of KR and $ Insurance Limited together with one Robertson. ... I think that these multitudinous activities fully justify the allegation in paragraph 1 of the notice of appeal that ‘ The Appellant is a football coach and businessman residing in the City of Burlington’’ in the Province of Ontario. ... It will be observed that from April 15, 1964 until the agreement dated December 8, 1964, there was no written agreement between the appellant and the Company but in that interval the appellant did act as the general manager of the Company and in my view the evidence confirms the allegation in paragraph 6 of the notice of appeal that, ‘‘ Under an oral agreement made in the month of April, 1964, which was reduced to writing on December 8, 1964, the Appellant became an employee and general manager of the Company.” ...

Following this report, Parliament by the Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1952, $. of C. 1952, e. 55, s. 8, vote 696, granted a nominal sum “To authorize (a) the Custodian of Enemy Property to transfer to the Minister of Finance such property, including the proceeds and earnings of property, that is vested in the Custodian in respect of World War II as the Governor in Council prescribes, (b) the Minister of Finance to hold, sell or otherwise administer property received by him from the Custodian under paragraph (a) or from other sources by way of reparations by former enemies (except Italy) in respect of World War II, and (c) the Minister of Finance to establish a special account in the Consolidated Revenue Fund to be known as the War Claims Fund, to which shall be credited all money received by him from the Custodian under paragraph (a) or from other sources by way of reparations by former enemies (except Italy) in respect of World War II, the proceeds of sale of property under paragraph (b), the earnings of property specified in paragraph (b) and amounts recovered from persons who have received overpayments in respect of claims arising out of World War II; and, notwithstanding section 35 of the Financial Administration Act, to provide for payments out of the War Claims Fund in the current and subsequent fiscal years, in accordance with regulations of the Governor in Council, to persons who claim compensation in respect of World War II for the payment out of the War Claims Fund in the current and subsequent fiscal years of expenses incurred in investigating and reporting on claims of those persons and for the repayment out of the War Claims Fund to Vote 128 (miscellaneous minor and unforeseen expenses (of all amounts that have been paid out of that Vote pursuant to The War Claims Interim Compensation Rules established by Order in Council, P.C. 667 of February 4, 1952.”’ ... By regulation 5, it was provided that ‘ No right to payment is conferred by these regulations”. ... That Act simply authorized ‘‘ payments” to particular persons in accordance with regulations to be made. ...