Search - 2002年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

Justice Hughes       BETWEEN: ABBVIE CORPORATION, ABBVIE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH & CO. ...   [13]            As to compensation in costs, given that the parties are at the eve of trial, I echo the words of Hugessen J in Montana Band v R, 2002 CarswellNat 1138 at paragraph 7:   7.         ... That Order will be added to this Order.       ORDER   FOR THESE REASONS PROVIDED, THIS COURT ORDERS that:   1.                   ...

Canada (Minister of National Revenue- M.N.R.), 2002 FCT 1317, 226 F.T.R. 159 at paras. 46- 47, bolsters its position in that it suggests that the Minister has previously interpreted the section as being meant to avoid a “fishing expedition” where neither of the parties served with the requirement, nor any person at whom the requirement was targeted, were under investigation.   ...   [56]            Therefore, the application must be granted.     ORDER   THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1.                   ... AMEX BANK OF CANADA       PLACE OF HEARING:                    Toronto, Ontario   DATE OF HEARING:                       July 9 th 2008   REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY:                            DEPUTY JUDGE FRENETTE   DATED:                                              August 27 th 2008     APPEARANCES:   Ronald MacPhee FOR THE APPLICANT     Graham Reynolds FOR THE RESPONDENT   SOLICITORS OF RECORD:   John H. ...

In September 2002, the deduction was disallowed by the CRA because, in its view, the documentation provided did not establish allowable legal costs. ...   [10]       For the applicant, the income tax arrears as stated in a CRA letter of January 9, 2006 is approximately 50% less than the balance owing in September 2002 according to his statement of account. ... Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario   FOR THE RESPONDENT               ...

A Notice of Objection was filed. [5]                On September 11, 1998, a Statement of Account was issued showing the amount due and indicating that, while the amount did not have to be paid immediately, interest would accumulate. [6]                Thereafter the Applicants say that they received no further correspondence or Notices of Assessment until September 2002. ... The Respondent acknowledged that a "stall" code had been put on the Raheys' file between July 7, 1999 and November 2002 which meant that no collection action was taken. ... Minister of National Revenue PLACE OF HEARING:                     Sydney, Nova Scotia DATE OF HEARING:                       December 16, 2004 REASONS FOR ORDER:                Phelan J. ...

The Minister proposed to reassess the Applicant for the 1998 to 2002 taxation years [Decision]. ... FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD   Docket: T-1758-18     STYLE OF CAUSE: MILGRAM FOUNDATION v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE   PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Québec   DATE OF HEARING: july 22, 2024   JUDGMENT AND REASONS: GO J.   DATED: September 9, 2024   APPEARANCES: Louise Summerhill Monica Carinci Paul Ryan Félix St-Vincent Gagné Stephen Ruby Emma Alexandra Lachance Josh Kumar   For The Applicant   Simon Petit Julien Dubé-Senécal Tara Magill Jonathan Bachie-Legault   For The RespondentS   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Aird & Berlis LLP Toronto, Ontario   For The Applicant   Ravinsky Ryan Lemoine LLP Montréal, Québec   For The Applicant   Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP Toronto, Ontario   For The Applicant   Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Québec   For The RespondentS     ...

Hart Breweries Ltd., 2002 FCT 632 at paragraph 7); ●   Mitigating factors might include good faith attempts to comply (even after the breach), whether there was an apology or acceptance of responsibility, or whether the breach is a first offence (Marshall at paragraph 16); ●   The judge can consider whether an order subsequently issued has somewhat changed the situation of the contemnor or an order violated by him has been found by the Court to be invalid (R. v. ... Hart Breweries Ltd., 2002 FCT 632 at paragraph 7) [36]   There was evidence led at the hearing on the Respondents’ ability to pay. [37]   Watchmaker is now Chief. ... DATED: february 12, 2019   APPEARANCES: David C Rolf   For The Applicants   Loretta Pete Lambert   For The Respondents   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: MLT Aikins LLP Edmonton, Alberta   For The Applicants   Semaganis Worme Legal Saskatoon, Saskatchewan   For The Respondents     ...

The Applicant noted that: “This whole matter would not be resolved until 2002….”  ... DATED:                                              November 7, 2006       APPEARANCES:   Mr. ... Leckie     FOR THE RESPONDENT   SOLICITORS OF RECORD:   None   FOR THE APPLICANT John H. ...

Global Marine’s position [24]   Global Marine points to Larny Holdings Ltd v Canada (Minister of Health), 2002 FCT 750 (“ Larny ”) to support its view that judicial review under s 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act is intended to be broad in scope and given a liberal interpretation.   ... Canada (M.C.I.), 2002 FCT 514 at para. 13 (F.C.T.D.); Krishnamurthy v. ... Strickland" Judge   FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD   DOCKET: T-1188-19   STYLE OF CAUSE: GLOBAL MARINE SYSTEMS LTD. v MINISTER OF TRANSPORT   PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario   DATE OF HEARING: February 3, 2020   JUDGMENT AND REASONS: STRICKLAND J.   ...

A Notice of Reassessment in amount of $257,386.84 was issued to Vu on July 23, 2002. [6]                Tsui and Vu were common law spouses who separated in April 2000. ... In her affidavit sworn September 1, 2004, Vu states that " (t)he address on my year 2002 income tax return was 77 Beckenridge Drive, Markham." [8]                Vu claims that she did not receive either the proposal letter or the Notice of Reassessment in 2002. ...

C-46 and the Excise Act, 2001 S.C. 2002, c.22 [the Act]. By motion, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant seek to have this matter summarily determined, albeit on different grounds. [2]   For the reasons that follow, I have allowed the Defendant’s summary judgment motion against the Plaintiffs. ... Alternatively, the Defendant seeks an order striking the Statement of Claim as being statute barred pursuant to the Ontario Limitations Act 2002, SO 2002, c 24 Sched B and s.39 of the Federal Courts Act. [19]   The Defendant argues that the provisions of the Act are a full answer to the Plaintiffs’ claim to the Seized Funds. ... They rely upon R. v Jarvis, 2002 SCC 73 [Jarvis] in support of this argument. [36]   The task for this Court, in considering the provisions of the Act, and determining if they apply to the Seized Funds, is to interpret the provisions of the Act in accordance with the modern approach of statutory interpretation, by considering the text, context, and purpose of the Act (Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. ...