Search - 2002年 抽纸品牌 质量排名
Results 311 - 320 of 844 for 2002年 抽纸品牌 质量排名
FCTD
Frank Arthur Investments Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue), 2014 FC 336
[12] On April 15, 2002, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed the judgment of this Court and, in June 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Vogue’s leave to appeal, rendering the Federal Court of Appeal decision final ... Costs are granted in favour of the respondent in the amount of $4,000.00. ... Pentney, Sous-procureur général du Canada Montréal (Québec) For The Respondent ...
FCTD
Abdelseed v. Canada Border Services Agency, 2013 FC 581
Aalto, Esquire, Prothonotary BETWEEN: ELBERT ABDELSEED Plaintiff and CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY Defendant REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT Introduction [1] Late one night, the Plaintiff, Mr. ... [10] Mr. Abdelseed was aware from an advertisement that a 2002 Freightliner Limousine Bus (the Bus) was for sale in Newark, New Jersey. ... Abdelseed. JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: 1. ...
FCTD
Canada v. Tran, 2008 FC 297
Justice O'Keefe BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Applicant and ALEXANDER TRAN (also known as Quo Dong Tran, Dung Tran, Quoc Dong Tran and Quoc Tran) Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT O’KEEFE J ... [5] On June 8, 2005, the respondent was charged with a number of offences under the Income Tax Act including six counts relating to allegedly false or deceptive statements, one count of tax evasion, one count of making false or deceptive statement in GST returns under the Excise Act, 2001, 2002, c. 22 and five firearms charges under the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. ... Blom (2002), 167 C.C.C. (3d) 332 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Beacon, [2005] O.J. ...
FCTD
Canada (National Revenue) v. The Greater Montréal Real Estate Board, 2006 FC 1069
The Greater Montréal Real Estate Board, 2006 FC 1069 Date: 20060906 Docket: T-1080-05 Citation: 2006 FC 1069 Ottawa, Ontario, September 6, 2006 Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Johanne Gauthier BETWEEN: MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Applicant and GREATER MONTRÉAL REAL ESTATE BOARD Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] The Greater Montréal Real Estate Board (GMREB) is asking that the Court cancel my order dated June 28, 2005, made ex parte under subsection 231.2(3) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5 th Supp.) ... Finally, the Minister asked to be provided with the list of properties sold by each real estate agent in 2002, 2003 and 2004, including various information described in the requirement to provide information ... Jarvis, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 757, at paragraph 80). [46] However, the Supreme Court provided few indications in Richardson of what would constitute a genuine and serious inquiry. ...
FCTD
Saleck v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 549
Firstly, because since his arrival in Canada in December 2002, this is the only public political activity in which the applicant has participated. ... This evidence was the basis of his refugee sur place claim and of his fear of the Mauritanian authorities. ... No questions to be certified were proposed. “François Lemieux” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-6613-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: Mohamed Lemine Ould Saleck v. ...
FCTD
Kennedy v. Canada, 2012 FC 1050
Justice Martineau BETWEEN: TRACEY-DOREEN KENNEDY Applicant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [1] Ms. ... In fact, one particular case, which ultimately held that the ITA was intra vires but where the applicant had nonetheless relied on Lord Nelson, is Bruno v Canada Customs, 2002 BCCA 047, [2002] BCCA 47 [Bruno]. ... DATED: September 5, 2012 APPEARANCES: Tracey-Doreen Kennedy FOR THE APPLICANT (ON HER OWN BEHALF) Jason Levine FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Tracey-Doreen Kennedy West Kelowna, British Columbia FOR THE APPLICANT (ON HER OWN BEHALF) Myles J, Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia FOR THE RESPONDENT ...
FCTD
Peter G. White Management Ltd. v. Canada, 2004 FC 346
WHITE MANAGEMENT LTD. ... Vuntut Gwitchin Development Corp. (2002) 218 F.T.R. 116. [53] In the latter instance see, as an example of striking out on the basis of issue estoppel, Gajic v. ... Her Majesty the Queen et al PLACE OF HEARING: Calgary, Alberta DATE OF HEARING: October 10, 2002 REASONS FOR ORDER: Hargrave P. ...
FCTD
Heeg v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCT 337
A I read that, yes. 128 Q What did that say to you in terms of capacity? ... A Yes. 134 Q Obviously it's a medical condition- A Yes 135 Q Not his fault he got the stroke? ... Attorney General of Canada PLACE OF HEARING: REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN DATE OF HEARING: September 26, 2002 REASONS FOR ORDER OF the Honourable Mr. ...
FCTD
Tywriwskyi v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FC 542
Canada, 2002 FCT 1171, [2002] F.C.J. No. 1572 (QL), Teitelbaum J. stated at paragraph 9: Subsection 220(3.1) of the Act confers discretion on the Minister with regard to waiving or cancelling penalties or interest. ... Justice Mackay noted in Alasdair MacKay v M.N.R., [2002] F.C.J. No. 323, 2002 FCT 234 (F.C.T.D.), this standard requires a high degree of deference by the reviewing court to the exercise of discretion, especially since the discretion concerns a relieving provision under the Income Tax Act. [34] A number of recent cases decided by this Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard to judicial review of subsection 220(3.1) discretionary decisions. ... Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2002 FCT 618; Boudreault v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2002 FCT 84 and Cheng v. ...
FCTD
Mugu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 384
The Applicant explained that his passport was stolen from his car in 2002 and he applied for a new passport under the name Elisha Mugu because he did not want to use the same name on his previous stolen passport. ... Le mot « conjugal » vient de deux mots latins dont l’un signifie « joindre » et l’autre signifie « attelage », donc le terme signifie littéralement « joints ensemble » ou « attelés ensemble ». ... Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2002 SCC 1. ARGUMENT The Applicant Breach of Fairness [41] The Applicant submits that there was a breach of procedural fairness in the present case for the following reasons: 1) The officer who determined the Applicant to be inadmissible for misrepresentation was not a designated officer for the purpose of making the decision; 2) The fact that the officer who determined the Applicant to be inadmissible for misrepresentation was not the officer who conducted the interviews and collected information from the Applicant breached the rule of fundamental justice that “he who hears must decide.” ...