Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

Pamel J referred in numerous places in his reasons for judgment to the “open court” principle, including the statement by the Supreme Court in Sierra Club, 2002 SCC 41, that “ [t]he link between openness in judicial proceedings and freedom of expression has been firmly established by this Court.” ... This means that he controlled the timing of this introduction. … [H]e had the option of asking the Court to make an order to protect any information he wished to keep private and confidential. … [S]ection 318 of the FCR should not be considered in isolation. Faced with a problem such as the one faced by Rémillard, the Court is capable of finding a solution that balances, to the extent possible, the objectives of meaningful review of administrative decisions, procedural fairness, and the protection of any legitimate interest in confidentiality while at the same time maintaining the open court principle …. ...

The Queen, 78 DTC 6028, [1978] CTC 113 (FCTD)-- summary under Separate Existence Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Separate Existence "... ... Salomen & Co. ([1897] 2 A.C. 22)..." (p. 6038) ...

But it is another for the Minister to then herself claim that the minor error undermines the validity of her own document to avoid adherence to it, when all other data points of the form are entirely accurate …. ... Diner J went on to state (at para 108): The non-payment of interest in these circumstances runs counter to … Grenon. ... He concluded (at para. 112): … I find that the current jurisprudence supports a finding that interest must be paid on the Principal Amount. ...

S. 6(b) of Art. 303 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“ NAFTA”) permitted duty relief where imported goods that were subsequently exported were in “the same condition” as when they were imported. ... Rather, the applicant is filling the empty plastic containers with another product – the body care and sunscreen products. As the officer explained in his November 30, 2018, email, by filling the empty containers with these products and then closing them with caps or lids, the applicant is “creating a new product” … of which the container products are a part. ...

., 2019 FC 506, aff'd 2020 FCA 85-- summary under Subsection 231.2(3) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 231.2- Subsection 231.2(3) authorization of CRA requirement for a construction material company to disclose its customers with significant purchases Pursuant to ITA s. 231.2(3) and ETA s. 289(3), the Minister sought the following information about residential and commercial construction contractors having an account with the Respondent (“Roofmart”) and for whom the total annualized purchases were $20,000 or greater for the 4 ½ year period covered (and “Unnamed Persons Requirement”): (a) Identifying information (e.g., name, address, phone number and contact person); (b) The business number, if known; (c) The Customers’ itemized transaction details including invoice date, invoice number, total sales amount, method of payment, and address of delivery, and (d) All bank account information for the Customers (including transit, institution, and account numbers) from credit applications and/or otherwise maintained by Roofmart in its records. In rejecting Roofmart’s submissions that authorization of the Unnamed Persons Requirement should not be granted, Campbell J stated (at para.11) that the unnamed persons were an ascertainable group as “the total annual purchase requirement set out in the Unnamed Persons Requirement is sufficient to establish the target group of residential and commercial contractors among Roofmart’s customers,” and (at para. 13) that the Unnamed Persons Requirement had been established to had been “made to verify compliance by the person or persons in the group with any duty or obligation under the ITA and ETA ” e.g., verifying that the unnamed persons had filed all of their required income tax returns and calculated and remitted GST/HST. ...

...

All individuals, corporations, trusts or partnerships are required to complete and file form T1135 …. ... In rejecting most of the respondents’ submissions, Boswell J stated (at paras. 23, 25 and 27): [A]ny valid reason, such as a suspicion of offshore holdings, meets the low threshold for the reasonableness of an audit …. … There is no statutory time limit within which to make a request for information under subsection 231.1(1) …. ... Because it is not at all clear whether the Letter was directed to the Respondents individually or their connected entities, the first requirement of section 231.7 … for obtaining a compliance order has not been satisfied by the Minister …. ...

In finding that the Minister’s discretionary decision to not accept the late-filed RC4616 was reasonable, Zinn J stated (at paras 40, 42, 43 and 44): … [T]here is no evidence supporting the submission that the [January 1, 2016] date was placed there in error. … [T]he form filed in February 2016 was not a “late-filed election” as is suggested. It was a timely election filed in February 2016, the month following the January 2016 GST/HST reporting period of the Denso Companies and was stated to be effective January 1, 2016. … Denso Companies… admitted that they “were not aware of the new RC4616 regulation.” … The 2015 amendments were … referenced in a number of CRA publications and in the statute itself. ... It was open to the Minister to conclude, as was done, that the Denso Companies had not taken adequate precautions to keep abreast of their compliance obligations, actions that amount to carelessness and negligence. … ...

GFP produced 10 episodes of the first season, but then was informed, two years after the preliminary ruling, that CAVCO’s opinion, after having viewed episodes, was to deny the CPTC on the basis that the Production had the features of a “game, questionnaire or contest” and was, therefore, excluded under Reg. 1106(1) – excluded production- s. ... Pentney J dismissed the application for judicial review, stating (at paras 70, 72, 74): … [I]t is clear that the opinion provides only a preliminary indication, based solely on the information provided by the producer, and that the final decision is based on an assessment of the actual production itself. … There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the decision was not made in good faith, that it constituted an abuse of power or that it otherwise violates the objectives of the legislation. As indicated in Zone 3, the “architecture” of the statutory scheme requires the Minister to determine whether a production is excluded; this is exactly what was done. … … I accept that in view of the architecture of the system, to use the expression of Justice de Montigny in Zone 3 at paragraph 31, those who want a certificate must spend money to embark on a production, with no guarantee that they will receive the benefit of a tax credit. … ...

To conclude otherwise would improperly and adversely impact the interests of the third-party beneficiaries of the VSI Trust. … The common law recognizes a distinction between legal and beneficial ownership. A person having beneficial ownership in property can enforce their beneficial ownership rights against the holder of legal title. … Justice Brown … observed that a trustee holds trust property solely for the beneficiaries’ enjoyment and cannot profit personally from their dealings with the trust property or with the beneficiaries of the trust (Valard [2018 SCC 8] at para 17). Justice Côté echoed these principles … in Canada North Group stating “[p]roperty held in trust cannot be said to belong to the trustee because ‘in equity, it belongs to another person’ (Henfrey [[1989] 2 S.C.R. 24], at p. 31)”. ...