Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

I will hereafter call this relationship the ‘‘ Romar relationship’’. As to a prima facie case being sufficient, see In Re Income Tax and Milner August 15, 1968 XII 81/66. ... A file marked ‘‘A 4366A Modern Film Distributors re Italy ’ ’. 3. A file marked ‘‘A 4366B Modern Film Distributors re Taiwan”. 4. ... A file marked ‘‘ A 6854 Berti to Andrus’’. This file is not affected by the Romar relationship. ...

& N. 838, at 852; 157 E.R. 1415, at 1421. Also in Duncan v. Cammell Laird & Co. ... I am of the opinion that when evidence contained in the tax return is pertinent as evidence on any criminal charge, the Magistrate before whom that charge is being tried is a person legally entitled to the information. ’ ’ I am in respectful agreement with that. ...

Let it suffice to say that the whole picture in my view is similar to that described by-Lord Macmillan in another connection where his Lordship said they "‘consequently invented the imposing facade of a sale which sold nothing. ‘ ‘ The members of the Board who passed these orders knew that the agency theretofore existing would be attacked as being merely an agency formed for the purpose of equalizing prices and, hence, subject to being impugned under the decision in the Crystal Dairy case, supra. ... If, as I think, the real purpose and effect of the impugned arders are, as alleged in par. 25 of the statement of claim, "‘to take from the producer supplying the fluid market a portion of his real returns and to contribute the same to other producers for the purpose of equalization (and that) the so-called sales and resales to and by the agency so-called are colourable ‘ ‘ then I am satisfied the orders cannot stand. ...

Taves, the petitioner, is a member of the law firm of Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy. ... The fourth document is a handwritten memorandum from one lawyer at Farris & Company to another. ... The document listed as number 18 is a letter from Farris & Company to Columbian dated December 21, 1987. ...

Black & Decker Mfg. Co. (1974), 13 C.P.R. (2d) 97; 15 C.C.C. (2d) 193; 43 D.L.R. (3d) 393; 1 N.R. 299, in which an amalgamated company was held criminally liable for the acts of one of the amalgamating companies. There Black & Decker had amalgamated with two other companies pursuant to the provisions of the Canada Corporations Act. ... In Black & Decker the court placed great weight upon the use of the word “continue” in section 137. ...

The definition as summarized in Powys v Mansfield, supra, is [at 367 My & Cr 967 ER] “... a person ‘meaning to put himself in loco parentis; in the situation of the person described as the lawful father of the child’ ”. And again [at 367-8 My & Cr, 967-8 ER].. the principal value of... ... Again as stated in Powys v Mansfield [at 368 My & Cr, 968 ER]: The rule, both as applied to a father and to one in loco parentis, is founded upon the presumed intention.... ...

Those taken from Ernst & Young were sealed in an envelope and marked Exhibit C to his affidavit. ... Communications between Ladner Downs and Clarkson Gordon (now Ernst & Young) concerning the petitioners' legal affairs; 3. ... Exhibit " B", 1-10, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 27, 51-52, 61; Exhibit" C", 1-2, 4-5, 7-39, 41-43, 62-66. ...

.), c. 33, sec. 4, that: * " For every default in complying with the provisions of the next preceding section, the persons in default shall each be liable on summary conviction to a penalty of $25 for each day during which the default continues.” ... The evidence should also fix a certain date to the offence in respect of time, viz.: “As a certain time is usually limited by statute for a summary prosecution before justices of the peace, it was necessary, on that account also, to fix the offence to a certain date, in order that the proceeding might appear to be within the prescribed period; for if that was not shown either by positive proof of the day, or by express reference in the evidence to a date previously mentioned, the conviction could not be supported. ‘ ‘ Rex v. ... In that case, through an oversight, the year was not stated, in which the offence was committed, and the headnote sums up the law to be that, ‘‘ Where a penalty is to be sued for before justices of peace, within a certain time after the offence committed, upon a conviction for such offence returned by certiorari into B.R. it ought to appear on the face of the evidence stated in such conviction that the prosecution was in time’’. ...

. — A judge may, on ex parte application by the Minister, issue a warrant in writing authorizing any person named therein to enter and search any building, receptacle or place for any document or thing that may afford evidence as to the commission of an offence under this Act and to seize and, as soon as practicable, bring the document or thing before, or make a report in respect thereof to, the judge or, where the judge is unable to act, another judge of the same court to be dealt with by the judge in accordance with this section. (2) Evidence in support of application. — An application under subsection (1) shall be supported by information on oath establishing the facts on which the application is based. (3) Evidence. — A judge shall issue the warrant referred to in subsection (1) where he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that (a) an offence under this Act has been committed; (b) a document or thing that may afford evidence of the commission of the offence is likely to be found; and (c) the building, receptacle or place specified in the application is likely to contain such a document or thing. (4) Contents of warrant. — A warrant issued under subsection (1) shall refer to the offence for which it is issued, identify the building, receptacle or place to be searched and the person alleged to have committed the offence and it shall be reasonably specific as to any document or thing to be searched for and seized. (5) Seizure of document. — Any person who executes a warrant under subsection 1 may seize, in addition to the document or thing referred to in subsection (1), any other document or thing that he believes on reasonable grounds affords evidence of the commission of an offence under this Act and shall as soon as practicable bring the document or thing before, or make a report in respect thereof to, the judge who issued the warrant or, where the judge is unable to act, another judge of the same court to be dealt with by the judge in accordance with this section. (6) Retention of things seized. — Subject to subsection (7), where any document or thing seized under subsection (1) or (5) is brought before a judge or a report in respect thereof is made to a judge, the judge shall, unless the Minister waives retention, order that it be retained by the Minister, who shall take reasonable care to ensure that it is preserved until the conclusion of any investigation into the offence in relation to which the document or thing was seized or until it is required to be produced for the purposes of a criminal proceeding. (7) Return of things seized. — Where any document or thing seized under subsection (1) or (5) is brought before a judge or a report in respect thereof is made to a judge, the judge may, of his own motion or on summary application by a person with an interest in the document or thing on three clear days notice of application to the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, order the document or thing be returned to the person from whom it was seized or the person who is otherwise legally entitled thereto if the judge is satisfied that the document or thing (a) will not be required for an investigation or a criminal proceeding; or (b) was not seized in accordance with the warrant or this section. (8) Access and copies. — The person from whom any document or thing is seized pursuant to this section is entitled, at all reasonable times and subject to such reasonable conditions as may be imposed by the Minister, to inspect the document or thing and to obtain one copy of the document at the expense of the Minister. ... (b) Criminal Code, section 670 — Recommendation by a Jury According to section 670 of the Criminal Code, a judge “shall" put to the jury a request for its recommendations as to sentence following a verdict of guilty of second degree murder. ...

Receipt was acknowledged in a letter dated October 19, 1932 (Ex. 21), an excerpt from which reads: " A transfer of the area from Miami Corporation to Abernethy-Lougheed Logging Company Ltd. has been filed but in filing this transfer the Department accepts no responsibility as to title or otherwise/ ‘ The agreement between the province and the Dominion bound the province to fulfil any obligations in connection with the railway belt lands that were binding on the Dominion. ... A statement will be furnished the licensee showing his share of the cost incurred, and payments thereof shall be made to the Crown within thirty days thereafter. ‘ ‘ On the last page of the licence appears these words: ‘‘I accept this licence and agree to all the terms and conditions thereof,’’ signed by the Miami Corporation by its proper officials and its corporate seal is attached thereto. ... & C. 591, 107 E.R. 853); (2) that the same or a larger amount should be due from C. to A. than from A. to B. ...