Search - 2002年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

Justice Shore    BETWEEN:   JONES MOISE       Applicant   and       REVENUE CANADA       Respondent                    REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT   I. ... Citing Carlson v R, 2002 FCA 145, the respondent argues that it did not have the discretion to grant the applicant’s request for an extension.   ... Shore” Judge       Certified true translation Janine Anderson, Translator FEDERAL COURT   SOLICITORS OF RECORD     DOCKET:                                          T-1239-11   STYLE OF CAUSE:                         JONES MOISE v REVENUE CANADA       PLACE OF HEARING:                   Toronto, Ontario   DATE OF HEARING:                     October 30, 2012   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT:                          SHORE J.   ...

Justice Blanchard     BETWEEN:   MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE   Applicant   and   757746 ALBERTA LTD. and PAUL MOREL   Respondents     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER     [1]                In these reasons I explain why I have found the Respondents to be in contempt of the Court’s Order of January 18, 2007.   1.         ... The Respondents were required to answer in respect to the period from August 1, 2002 to January 31, 2004, and requested six (6) different categories of documents pertaining to all transactions that occurred during the audit period. ... Deputy Attorney General of Canada Edmonton, Alberta   FOR THE APPLICANT No one appearing for the Respondents FOR THE RESPONDENTS                       ...

Corriveau Estate, 2003 FCT 511                                                                                                                                             Date: 20030425                                                                                                                                      Docket: IT A-691-02 Citation: 2003 FCT 511 Ottawa, Ontario, the 25th day of April 2003 Present:           THE HONOURABLE MR. ... Christian Trépanier's fees in the amount of $22,630.07 were to be deducted from the 10% of any sum that would be obtained. [7]         On or about September 30, 2002, subject to not having received any invoice from the estate, the garnishee sent the government departments concerned the sum of $189,989.58 plus GST and QST representing approximately the 10% in fees of the agreement of March 20, 1993, less the fees of Mr. ... Justice Simon Noël DATED:                                        April 25, 2003 APPEARANCES: Nadine Dupuis                                                     FOR THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR Pierre Fournier                                                     FOR THE GARNISHEE SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Morris Rosenberg                                                              FOR THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario William Noonan                                                                 FOR THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR Sillery, Quebec Fournier Associés s.e.n.c.                                                 ...

It notified Ms Telfer of this decision by letter January 15, 2002.  In that letter, the respondent again informed Ms Telfer that interest would continue to accumulate on the unpaid balance and that the Agency would pay interest on the relevant amount should her objections ultimately be successful ... CRA         PLACE OF HEARING:                     Toronto, Ontario   DATE OF HEARING:                       January 29, 2008   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT BY:                     FRENETTE D.J.   DATED:                                              February 20, 2008       APPEARANCES:   Miles O’Reilly   FOR THE APPLICANT Andrea Jackett   FOR THE RESPONDENT   SOLICITORS OF RECORD:   Miles D. ...

I am in response to your letter of March 26, 2002.       I have been dealing with this promissory note over the years.... ... Bernazzoli dated April 8, 2002. [20]       As disclosed in paragraph [9] above, this letter clearly establishes that this American attorney acts for Roméo Hébert and has been instructed to answer the letter of the judgment creditor dated March 26, 2002. ... This letter of April 8, 2002, does not draw any link between the balance owing on the note and the payments to Annick Bertrand. [27]       Second, it should not be forgotten that this letter of April 8, 2002, arrived at a time that the three-year prescription had elapsed, i.e. on November 12, 1999. [28]       It appears from the judgment in Brosseau v. ...

Justice Scott     BETWEEN:   TRANSPORT VARES INC.       Applicant   and       GUOJIE FENG       Respondent     and         Me MARC ABRAMOWITZ       Adjudicator appointed by the Minister of Labour              REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT   I.         ...   [74]      If these factors are not conclusive of the legal relationship between the parties, the Court can also turn to Wolf v Canada, [2002] 4 FC 396, to determine whether the Respondent is an employee or a contractor.   ... DATED:                                              November 10, 2011       APPEARANCES:   Carol V. ...

JUSTICE O'REILLY                           BETWEEN:                                        CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION                                                                                                                                                        Applicant                                                                              - and-                                                MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE                                                                                                                                                    Respondent                                                                              - and-                                                                  SCOTT WIGNALL                                                                                                                                                    Respondent                                                                              - and-                                     COUNCIL OF CANADIANS WITH DISABILITIES                                                                                                                                                      Intervener                                       REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [1]                 The Canadian Human Rights Commission has asked me to set aside a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. ... Vancouver Rape Relief Society (No. 2) (2002), 42 C.H.R.R. D/20 and Dame v. South Fraser Health Region (2002), 43 C.H.R.R. D/251. Accordingly, I agree with the Commission that complainants will satisfy the burden of proof under the Canadian Human Rights Act if they establish that they have been subjected to adverse treatment on a prohibited ground for which the respondent is responsible. ...

Of the cases cited to me,   Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP   v.   Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2002 BCSC 1344 (CanLII), [2002] B.C.J No. 2146, is closest to the circumstances before me. ... and   St. Joseph Corp.   v.   Canada (Public Works and Government Services),  2002 FCT 274, [2002] F.C.J. ... Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209, 2002 SCC 61 (S.C.C.); and Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) v. ...

Afterwards, the statutory increases set forth in subsequent acts were applied to those salaries for a period of six years. [8]                The parties agreed that this salary gap has been decreased since 2002. [9]                Moreover, in 1994, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that RCMP employees had been entitled to a bilingualism bonus since the program entered into force, which was well before 1984. [10]            According to the applicants, they should have been paid that bonus in order to comply with the principle of equivalency. ... Although this was replaced on July 2, 2002, the new policy is identical to the former one regarding the questions that interest us. [38]            Under the terms of section 5.1 of the Policy, an employee must present a grievance to the designated first level manager no later than 25 working days following the day on which he or she first becomes aware of the action or circumstance that is the subject of the grievance. [39]            The parties agree that in the particular circumstances of this case, if we consider the letter from August 20, 1999, as being a grievance, it should have been submitted within the 25-day deadline set forth in paragraph 5.1 of the Policy. [40]            In their grievance, the applicants claimed retroactive damages and attacked decisions made several years before 1999. ... HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN       PLACE OF HEARING:                    MONTRÉAL   DATE OF HEARING:                      JANUARY 10, 2006   REASONS OF JUDGMENT:          GAUTHIER J.   ...

Ford filed Canadian income tax returns under the Voluntary Disclosures Program [VDP] for taxation years 2000, 2001 and 2002. [6]                In those returns, Mr. ... Ford for the 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years. Taxable dividends, capital gains and disallowed rental expenses were added to his income. [15]            Mr. ... Ford never explained why he declared Canadian residence throughout the 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years in his voluntary disclosures. [55]            Mr. ...