Search - 2002年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

  [9]                As well, Daniel Goyette stated that in the course of his audit he was able to identify the following expenses incurred by the respondent: for the 2002 taxation year, although the respondent reported income of only $26,540.00, $93,373.57 was used for personal expenses; for the 2003 taxation year, although the respondent reported income of only $27,770.00, $82,501.19 was used for personal expenses; for the 2005 taxation year, although the respondent reported income of only $28,308.00, $123,940.00 was used for personal expenses; for the years audited, 2000 to 2005, expenses of $27,826.75 (in addition to the amounts referred to above as personal expenses) at the casino, while for the same years, the respondent was paid $13,150.00 by the casino by cheque ... Chamberlain         ORDER   THE COURT ORDERS that the respondent's application to set aside the jeopardy collection order is dismissed, with costs.   “Luc Martineau” Judge       Certified true translation Monica F. Chamberlain     ...

b)          On February 4, 2002, Heirloom requested a further re-determination of its classification under the Act. After re-examining Heirloom's classification, the Minister upheld this decision, and consequently issued Notice of Assessment SWO101 against Heirloom on June 26, 2002 for unpaid excise taxes.             ... JUDGMENT             IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1.         ...

"Martine St-Louis" Judge     FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: t-758-23   STYLE OF CAUSE: S. ROBERT CHAD v THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE   PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec   DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 30, 2023   JUDGMENT AND REASONS: ST-LOUIS J.   DATED: NOVEMBER 9, 2023   APPEARANCES: Dov Whitman   For The Applicant   Justine Malone/Jason Stober   For The Respondent   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: KPMG Law LLP Toronto, Ontario   For The Applicant   Department of Justice Canada Ottawa, Ontario   For The Respondent     ...

Justice Blais            BETWEEN:                         DOMINION SAMPLE LIMITED                                                                 Applicant                                    and                      THE COMMISSIONER OF THE CANADA                        CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY           (formerly the Deputy Minister of National Revenue)                                                                Respondent                          REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1]                 This is an application for judicial review under sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Court Act of a decision rendered on behalf of the Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. [2]                 The applicant, Dominion Samples Ltd. ... In a Supplementary Memorandum of Fact and Law submitted by the applicant on September 18, 2002, the applicant correctly pointed out that this was an error, and that section 114 did not apply to the applicant. [50]            In an Additional Memorandum of Fact and Law submitted by the respondent on October 30, 2002, the respondent acknowledged the mistake and stated that the correct section was section 118 of the Customs Tariff. ... Pierre Blais                          J.F.C.                                                                  ...

  [49]   The Mint Act describes the coins of Canada, encompassing non-circulation coins addressed at sections 6 – 6.31 and circulation coins addressed at sections 6.4 – 6.6. ... DATED: MARCH 15, 2018   WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Radu Hociung   For The PLAINTIFF (SELF-REPRESENTED)   Eric O. Peterson   For The DEFENDANT   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario   For The DEFENDANT     ...

Questions not listed here regarding any of the annexes are therefore dismissed: 1 –   Questions that must be answered in Annex A of the NRC defendants’ Motion Table (reference is to the number in the far-left column):   35,   36,   37,   54,   55,   56,   61,   62,   63,   64,   65,   66,   67,   68,   70,   71,   79,   80,   81,   83,   86,   87,   88,   90,   91,   92,   95,   96,   97,   98,   99,   100,   104,   106,   107. 2 –   Questions that must be answered in Annex B of the NRC defendants’ Motion Table (reference is to the number in the far-left column):   1,   2,   7,   11,   12,   13,   15,   24,   29,   39,   53,   54,   56,   57,   67,   68,   69,   84,   85,   86,   87,   90,   91,   104,   106. ... Questions not listed here regarding any of the annexes are therefore dismissed: 1 –   Questions that must be answered in Annex A of the plaintiff’s Motion Table (reference is to the number in the far-left column):   35,   36,   37,   54,   55,   56,   61,   62,   63,   64,   65,   66,   67,   68,   70,   71,   79,   80,   81,   83,   86,   87,   88,   90,   91,   92,   95,   96,   97,   98,   99,   100,   104,   106,   107. 2 –   Questions that must be answered in Annex B of the NRC defendants’ Motion Table (reference is to the number in the far-left column):   1,   2,   7,   11,   12,   13,   15,   24,   29   39,   53,   54,   56,   57,   67,   68,   69,   84,   85,   86,   87,   90,   91,   104,   106. ... “Richard Morneau” Prothonotary FEDERAL COURT   SOLICITORS OF RECORD       DOCKET:   T-1856-06   STYLE OF CAUSE:   RAYMOR INDUSTRIES INC. and INSTITUT NATIONAL DE RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE   Plaintiffs   and   NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA BENOIT SIMARD, ORSON BOURNE, UNIVERSITY OF SHERBROOKE and GERVAIS SOUCY   Defendants   AND BETWEEN:   NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA   Plaintiff by counterclaim and INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE   Defendant by counterclaim     PLACE OF HEARING:   Montréal, Quebec   DATE OF HEARING:   August 26 and 27, 2008   REASONS FOR ORDER:   PROTHONOTARY MORNEAU   DATED:   August 29, 2008                 APPEARANCES:   Laurent Debrun   FOR THE PLAINTIFFS Christopher C. ...

Jarvis, 2002 SCC 73, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 757, the Applicants contend there is a stark distinction between an audit and an investigation. ...   [125]   Section 53 of the ATIA governs costs in judicial review proceedings under the ATIA. ... DATED: DECEMBER 16, 2020   APPEARANCES: David Grossman Miriam Clouthier   For The Applicants   Sarom Bahk David Lucas For The Respondent   Aditya Ramachandran For The Third Party SOLICITORS OF RECORD: IMK LLP Montreal, Quebec   For The Applicants   Attorney General of Canada Montreal, Quebec   For The Respondent   Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada Gatineau, Quebec For The Third Party     ...

    [23]            During Mr. Young’s audits of Mr. Hennessey’s client accounts between 2002 and 2004, he identified remittance shortages and brought them to Mr.  ... Nilsson (2002), 220 D.L.R. (4th) 474, 2002 ABCA 283. In Roncarelli, the Premier was authorized to give advice to the Commission in respect of any legal questions that might arise, but had no authority to involve himself in a decision to revoke a particular licence. ... Ontario, [2002] O.J. No. 2188 (QL) (S.C.J.). It is important, however, to recall that the two categories merely represent two different ways in which a public officer can commit the tort; in each instance, the plaintiff must prove each of the tort's constituent elements. ...

ISSUES [12]       The issues are as follows: A.         Did the Minister consider all of the relevant factors when making his decision of December 27, 2002? ... ANALYSIS A.         Did the Minister consider all of the relevant factors when making his decision of December 27, 2002? ... B.         Did the Minister act in accordance with the principles of natural justice when making the decision of December 27, 2002? ...

an Order that the Respondent ‘set off’ an estimated sum of up to $10,000 as being a reduction in the tax liability pertaining to a proven expense of some $38,272 paid out to 4 deserving recipients in years 2002 and 2003 as a result of a police seizure in December, 1998 of the same source income, that is, the sum of $38,272, being an expense in subsequent years as a result of a specified 1998 income producing activity.   4.                   ... That was 90 days after July 5, 2002, or about October 5, 2002.  Subsections 225.1(1) and 225.1(1.1) of the Act are set out in the Appendix to these reasons ...   [26]       It follows, therefore, that the Minister could not have recourse to subsection 224.3(1) of the Act before on or about October 5, 2002.  ...