Search - 2002年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

Bocock J stated (at paras 10, 14, 15): … Non est factum is available where a person is not capable of both reading and sufficiently understanding a document. … … The medical evidence … commences from the diagnosis date [of metastatic cancer in 2002]. … With the exception of Mr. ... Therefore, the notices of reassessments responsive to the 2003 filings … were void. … [T]he reassessments were consequential to invalid or unlawful filings and issued by the Minister under innocent mistake of fact. Accordingly, no objection was required to the void reassessments. … Bocock J went on (at para. 24) to issue an order “vacating the operative (re)assessments for the 1998, 2001 and 2002 taxation years, which in turn were responsive to the void 2003 filings”- and to find (at para. 22) that the reassessments for “the 1999 and 2000 taxation years … pre-date the period of probable incapacity (i.e. the diagnosis date) and lack or inability to give authority for filing” and, thus, were valid as they had been received by Anna at her address and the time to grant an extension to object had passed.. ...

Before voiding the search warrant for the law firm premises and ordering the related documents to be returned, Hilton JCA stated (at paras. 43, 44, 47, 48, 51): Justice Arbour reminded…in Lavalee, Rackel & Heintz v. Canada … [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209 [para. 49]: …Before searching a law office, the investigative authorities must satisfy the issuing justice that there exists no other reasonable alternative to the search. … The Agency had an affirmative obligation, which it disregarded, to demonstrate that there was no other alternative solution, and the judge could not ignore this. … [T]he simple fact that a Trimax representative had mentioned that there were documents at his lawyer did not establish that such documents could not be found elsewhere. … The absence of an alternative solution was not at all addressed in the information and the judge could not satisfy her formal review obligation respecting such absence on the basis of other alleged facts. … [I]t would appear that it was ease and convenience which motivated the request for a search warrant for the law firm…. ...

Diamond J found that the plaintiff’s claim was not statute-barred by reason of the Limitations Act 2002, stating (at paras 22 and 23): 24 Gold submits that … “at the very latest, the plaintiff ought to have issued a Statement of Claim by the summer of the year 2012” (i.e. at the conclusion of the series of its transactions with 24 Gold). Section 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act 2002 requires a person to have known that, having regard to the nature of the person’s loss, a legal proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy that loss. … Only when the plaintiff ended up paying the HST itself did it acquire a cause of action for the debt now due by 24 Gold. While I do not condone the delay on the part of the plaintiff to properly invoice the subject transactions, the bottom line is that the plaintiff could not commence a legal proceeding until the CRA audit resulted in the payment by the plaintiff of the outstanding HST. … As such, the limitation period did not commence until, at the earliest, June 1, 2015. ...

. … Regarding the nature of the segregated fund at issue, I conclude that the overarching feature was the life insurance component. ... In paying each appellant the sum of $5,096.08 on February 21, 2002, London Life was fulfilling a legal obligation. The Minister assumed – incorrectly – that the segregated fund belonged in the same category as an RRSP or RRIF. ...

The Queen, 2018 TCC 59-- summary under Consideration Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 123- Subsection 123(1)- Consideration statutorily-mandated waste recycling charges were consideration for a taxable supply Stewardship Ontario (“SO”) was a not-for-profit corporation that operated, as part of a regime governed by the Waste Diversion Act, 2002 (Ontario) ('WD Act"), an Ontario program for recycling various types of waste such as paints, solvents, batteries, empty propane tanks and antifreeze. ... Specifically, section 30 and subsections 31(1) and 34(6) of the WD Act provide that if a person has a commercial connection with designated waste or a product from which the designated waste is derived that person (i.e., a steward) must pay a portion of the Appellant’s cost of developing, implementing and operating a waste diversion program …. ... Once a person is found to have, under the MHS Waste Program Agreement, the required commercial connection with the MHS Waste, the person is deemed to be an MHSW Steward. … [O]nce the person becomes an MHSW Steward that person is required to pay the costs of collecting and recycling the designated waste. ...

In 2012, the taxpayer sent two separate emails to his representative, one with a copy of the 2001 Notice of Confirmation (NOC) and the other with a copy of the 2002 NOC. ... The taxpayer requested the Court to grant an application to extend time to file a NOA in respect of the 2002 Reassessment. Lafleur J rejected an argument that “on the basis of Hickerty, [2007 TCC 482] that where an appellant has taken positive actions to appeal and where that appellant reasonably believes that the appeal has been validly filed, the one‑year grace period had stopped running,” stating (at paras 75, 77 and 84): The Federal Court of Appeal in Carlson … made it clear that the one‑year grace period is strict and cannot be waived. … In view of the doctrine of the Federal Court of Appeal, the fact that the Appellant did not realize before August 2016 that the 2002 Reassessment was not appealed from can have no impact whatsoever on the calculation of the one-year grace period. … The fact that the CRA was mistakenly under the impression that the 2002 Reassessment was being appealed from and did not start collection proceedings before 2016 has no bearing on that conclusion. … The wording of section 167 and paragraph 167(5)(a) of the Act is clear and unambiguous; the language of this paragraph does not allow me to conclude that the time stopped running because the Appellant was under the wrong impression that the 2002 Reassessment was being appealed from. ...