Search - 2002年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

ROBERTSON                                                                                                                                                        Applicant                                                                                  and                                           THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE                                                                                                                                                    Respondent                                                                                                              Let the attached edited version of the transcript of my Reasons for Order delivered orally                                        from the bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia on December 17, 2002, be filed to comply with Section                             51 of the Federal Court Act.                                                             ... Layden-Stevenson           PLACE HEARD:    Halifax, Nova Scotia            DATE HEARD:     Tuesday, December 17, 2002           COUNSEL:        Mr. ... ROBERTSON (Applicant) and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL                 REVENUE (Respondent), taken by way of electronic recording                 pursuant to Section 15 of the Court Reporters Act.                               ____________________________                               Sandy Adam                               Certified Verbatim Reporter                 Sunday, January 5, 2003 at Halifax, Nova Scotia                                                     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA                                                                  TRIAL DIVISION                               NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET:                                             T-1281-01 STYLE OF CAUSE:                           Frank G Robertson and The Minister of National Revenue PLACE OF HEARING:                     Halifax, Nova Scotia DATE OF HEARING:                       December 17, 2002 REASONS FOR ORDER:             Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson DATED:                                                January 10, 2003 APPEARANCES: Frank G. ...

The audit concluded in February 2002.   [7]                The expenses which are at issue in the case at bar are the following.  ...   [9]                In early 2002, negotiations took place between the applicant and CRA representatives.  ... It appears from the affidavit dated March 10, 2005, of Michael McGlynn, director of the Technical Publications Unit of the CRA’s Excise and GST/HST Rulings Directorate (Excise Directorate – CRA), that the applications were denied on July 23, 2002. ...

  [7]                The CRA received additional documents from the Applicant on June 3, 2002. ...   [8]                The Applicant submitted further documents which were received by the CRA on August 19, 2002. ...   [9]                In a telephone conversation between the CRA and the Applicant on October 21, 2002 and confirmed by letter dated November 12, 2002 from the Auditor, the Applicant advised the Department that he owned and operated a corporation known as Personal Group Realty Incorporated. ...

The asking price is $3.2 million and it has been up for sale since April 2002. Current equity, after deduction of total mortgage balances, is estimated to be $464,089.74 as at January 29, 2003. [4]                 On February 5, 2003, the numbered company was assessed by the Minister the amount of $73,733.34, pursuant to section 224 of the Act, arising out of its non-compliance with an August 1, 2002 Requirement to Pay (the "RTP"). ... Qu, [2002] 3 F.C. 3 (C.A.)). [7]                 I examined, in particular, Exhibit "K" to the affidavit of Angus Ito dated February 5, 2003. ...

Justice Michel Beaudry                                  BETWEEN:                                                     CARREFOUR LANGELIER INC.                                                                                                                                                        Applicant                                                                                  and                                                            THE CANADA CUSTOMS                                                            AND REVENUE AGENCY                                                                                                                                                    Respondent                                                REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER (Section 18.2 of the Federal Court Act and Sections 231.2, 230(1) and 238 of the Income Tax Act) [1]                 This is a motion on behalf of the applicant for an interim order suspending the effect of a requirement to provide information issued under section 231.2 of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") pending final determination of the application by the applicant to set aside the requirements to provide information. [2]                 The applicant is contesting the legality of the requirement to provide information by means of an application for judicial review filed under section 18.1 of the Federal Court Act. [3]                 The letter dated August 20, 2003 to the applicant under paragraph 231.2 (1)(b) of the Act requires that the applicant provide amongst others:-           the minute book of Langelier Inc.;-           a copy of the partnership agreement related to the investment in partnership mentioned in the financial statements of 2002;-           financial statements of that partnership, from 1997 to 2002; and-           details (copy of the contract, name of the individual, name of the Company, which is controlled by that individual, description of securities involved) regarding the balance of sale receivable mentioned in the financial statements of 2002. [4]                 To obtain such a relief, the applicant must meet the tripartite test laid down in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. ... He filed for bankruptcy on August 9, 2002. In his statement of affairs, he declared to be the owner of one class B share of Grands Horizons and 166,250 class F shares of Grands Horizons. ...

In this case, the Notice of Objection was filed in January 2002, following the Notice of Assessment issued in November. ... The normal process provided under the Excise Tax Act for assessment, and settlement of any differences about the assessment, was in place by January 2002.       ... DATE OF HEARING:                        MAY 21, 2002 REASONS FOR ORDER: The Honourable Mr. ...

The Applicant, Haney 2 For 1 Pizza Ltd., failed to remit GST for the period from February 28, 1998 to November 30, 2002.  ... Campbell” Judge       FEDERAL COURT   SOLICITORS OF RECORD     DOCKET:                                           T-1569-06   STYLE OF CAUSE:                          JIM'S PIZZA (1980) LTD. ... DATED:                                              July 26, 2007       APPEARANCES:   Peter J. ...

Justice Harrington   BETWEEN:   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN       Applicant   and       JACK KLUNDERT       Respondent                       REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER   [1]                In virtue of a “jeopardy order” obtained ex parte from Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer in April 1999, the tax authorities collected the sum of $871,291.90 between June 1999 and May 2003, and applied it to amounts owing by Dr. ... He relies upon the Supreme Court’s decision in R v Jervis, 2002 SCC 73, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 757 ... Christie Barrister & Solicitor Victoria, BC   FOR THE RESPONDENT     ...

Apotex Inc., 2002 FCT 278, aff’d 2003 FCA 59).   Incorrect Legal Test [9]                The Applicants contend that the Learned Prothonotary erred because he applied the legal test in R. v. ... Canada (Minister of Finance), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 522.   [10]            Reading the decision as a whole, I cannot conclude that the Learned Prothonotary misapplied the law. ... ORDER   IT IS ORDERED THAT:   1.                   The appeal is dismissed.   2.                   ...

On March 13, 2002, the Applicant was advised of his transfer to the Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (“SME”) section ... The Applicant also included an additional complaint, alleging that on July 23, 2002, Mr. ...   [20]            Since the complaint was filed within one year of the March 16 and May 9, 2002 events, it was within the time period required under the CRA policy.  ...