Search - 德国民法典第1993条

" Further, the applicant's balance sheet as at July 31, 1993, the only financial statement in evidence, shows liabilities exceeding assets by an amount in excess of 3.7 million dollars. [18]            The above evidence respecting the applicant's assets, notwithstanding its sparsity, is sufficient, in my view, to reasonably establish that the applicant's asset base may not be sufficient to satisfy its obligations. ...

.: 1           The Plaintiff, her Majesty the Queen (the "Minister"), appeals the decision of the Tax Court of Canada, dated 17 June 1993, whereby the Defendant's appeal in respect of its 1980, 1981, 1983 and 1985 taxation years was allowed. ...

Canada (Minister of Public Works), [1993] 2 F.C. 229 where Reed J. reviewed extensively the legislative background of section 18.1 and concluded at page 283: I think the wording in subsection 18.1(1) allows the Court discretion to grant standing when it is convinced that the particular circumstances of the case and the type of interest which the applicant holds justify status being granted ...

York Beverages filed a notice of objection to the assessment in March 1993. [3]                In February 2001, the Minister issued assessments under section 160 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), as amended (ITA) against the applicants. ...

., [1993] 2 F.C. 425 (C.A.). [17]      It has been held that a judge hearing an appeal from a prothonotary's discretionary order should not intervene except in the following two cases:             (a)        the order deals with a question vital to the final issue of the principal matter;             (b)        the order is clearly wrong, in the sense that the exercise of discretion by the prothonotary was based upon a wrong principle or a misapprehension of the facts. [18]      The effect of the prothonotary's order was that the garnishee was directed to pay the sum of $126,666.39. ...

., [1993] 2 F.C. 425 (C.A.), the Federal Court of Appeal held that discretionary orders (such as the one in this case) made by prothonotaries will be set aside only if they are clearly wrong in law: [para 94] I also agree with the Chief Justice in part as to the standard of review to be applied by a motions judge to a discretionary decision of a prothonotary. ...

.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519, and Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927.) [27]            Section 11(b) of the Charter states that "any person charged with an offence has the right... to be tried within a reasonable time" and applies to purely criminal and penal proceedings. ...

.), [1993] R.J.Q. 625, at 633, Delisle J.A., speaking for a majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal, after reviewing the now well-known observations of De Grandpré J. in [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369 "> Committee for Justice and Liberty v. ...

Canada (1993), 17 Admin. L.R. (2d) 243, at p. 246.) [30]       As the Court held in the latter case, at page 247: It would appear from these provisions that in challenging a decision or order of the Governor in Council made pursuant to statutory authority, the correct and only procedure is to proceed by way of originating notice under s. 18.1 of the Federal Court Act as was originally done here. [31]       An application for judicial review is the appropriate procedure even if one is arguing that a decision of a federal board, commission or other tribunal is in the nature of a tort of misfeasance in public office. ...

Canada (Minister of National Revenue- M.N.R.) [1993] F.C.J. No. 768, confirmed [1997] F.C.J. ...