Search - 2002年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

  [60] The words of the Act, including in this case the exclusions from the concept of federal property, must be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of Parliament, even when a provision seems clear and conclusive (Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v Rex, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; Pharmascience Inc. v Binet, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 513). ... Paragraph 2(3)(b) of the PILT Act and Schedule II state that the definition of federal property does not include: […] […]   (b) any structure, work, machinery or equipment that is included in Schedule II; b) les constructions, les ouvrages, les machines ou le matériel mentionnés à l’annexe II;   […] […]   SCHEDULE II (Section 2) ANNEXE II (article 2)   […] […] 2 […] towers […] 2 […] tours […] […] […] 7 Monuments 7 Monuments […] […] 12 Snow shelters 12 Abris contre la neige […] […] […] [143] Over the years, the issue of whether the Clock Tower should be excluded from the concept of federal property as a “tower” or “monument” within the meaning of items 2 and 7 of Schedule II has remained controversial. ... Montréal, Quebec   FOR THE APPLICANT   Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP Montréal, Quebec   FOR THE RESPONDENT   Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE INTERVENER     ...

It is not up to the Court to reassess the weight that should be given to the evidence, but rather to ensure that the administrative decision-maker took all of the relevant factors into account (Baker at paragraphs 54–56, 68, 73–75; Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3, 2002 SCC 1 at paragraphs 34–38; Mpula v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 456, [2007] FCJ No. 618 at paragraph 26 [Mpula]). [6]                This application must be dismissed. [7]                Firstly, the applicant failed to convince me that the officer breached a principle of procedural fairness by failing to confirm with her current employer in Canada whether she held a permanent or temporary position. ... DATED: November 8, 2016   APPEARANCES: Susan Ramirez   For the applicant Thi My Dung Tran   For the respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Susan Ramirez Montréal, Quebec   For the applicant William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec   For the respondent   ...

The lack of analytical usefulness of this distinction is now widely recognized and its use as a “gateway” to statutory interpretation is firmly rejected: Chieu v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 3 at paragraph 34, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84; Montréal (City) v 2952-1366 Québec Inc, 2005 SCC 62 at paragraphs 9–10, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 141; Sullivan, Statutory Interpretation, at 70–72. ... Section 34(1)(e) does so for those “engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada.” [57]   Indeed, certain cases have alluded to this potential redundancy and have suggested that the two subsections have different meanings: SR v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 1118 at paragraphs 52–54; Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1 at paragraph 91, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3 (regarding the predecessor provisions). ... DATED: OCTOBER 2, 2019   APPEARANCES: Peter Edelman Erica Olmstead   For The Applicant   Helen Park   For The Respondent   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Edelman & Company Barristers and Solicitors Vancouver, British Columbia   For The Applicant   Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario   For The Respondent     ...

Rosenberg submits that the fact that the limitation period for filing an application for judicial review may be expired should not be used as a ground for granting a motion to strike (Maroney v Canada, 2002 FCT 801 at para 7, [2002] FCJ No 1068). ... DATED: APRIL 28, 2015   APPEARANCES: Guy Du Pont Michael H. Lubetsky   FOR THE PLAINTIFF   Andrew Miller   FOR THE DEFENDANT   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP Attorneys Montréal, Quebec   FOR THE PLAINTIFF   William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario   FOR THE DEFENDANT     ...

Canada (T.D.) [2002] 2 F.C. 484 Date: 20011219 Docket: T-2407-96 Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 1408 BETWEEN: GEORGE WILLIAM HARRIS, on his own behalf, and on behalf of a class of Plaintiffs comprised of all individuals and others required to file returns pursuant to section 150 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5 th Supp.), c. 1, as amended, excepting those filers as described in paragraph 2 of this Claim, Plaintiff                                                                             -and- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Defendants REASONS FOR JUDGMENT DAWSON J. [1]                 In May of 1996, the Auditor General of Canada reported serious concerns about the administration of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5 th Supp.), c. 1 [1] (the "Act") involving the movement out of Canada of at least two billion dollars of assets held in family trusts following the issuance in 1991 of an advance income tax ruling by what was then Revenue Canada. [2]                 The advance ruling had dealt with the income tax consequences for a trust that would cease to be resident in Canada and would become resident in the United States. ... (2)            This is not an avoidance transaction- so forget 245 and Article XXIX(6) [...] (6)            Bottom Line: Have to make a determination on TCP-                 Consult Finance-                 Consult Justice Meet with Reps. [...] ... Dawson"                                                                                                                                                   Judge                           [1].          ...

[Emphasis added] [20]   Similarly, in Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP v Canada (Minister of National Revenue – M.N.R.), 2002 FCT 912 [Fraser Milner] at paras 27-28, Justice Dawson (then of the Federal Court) relied on AGT and confirmed that relevance under s 231.2 is tested by determining whether the particular record requested may be relevant in the determination of a taxpayer’s tax liability and not whether the record is relevant with respect to a particular issue under audit. [21]   While some of the above authorities relied upon by the Minister relate to provisions of the Act other than s 231.1, I do not understand Atlas to be arguing that these authorities are inapplicable on this basis. ... A.   Correct. Q.   And I think later on you call it … A.   It could be a liability, right, but, yes, you look at the collective of the business, the assets and the liabilities. Q.   And later on you call it tax attributes. A.   That’s fair, because attributes denotes both assets and liabilities. [49]   Mr. ...

Accordingly, in view of Alberta Teachers, a deferential reasonableness standard of review, rather than a standard of correctness, should be adopted in reviewing the Minister’s interpretation of subsection 220(2.1) of the ITA. [25]   As to the Applicant’s question whether the Minister failed to observe natural justice or procedural fairness in refusing the requested waiver, the applicable standard of review is one of correctness: see Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1 at para 115, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3. ... DATED: january 27, 2016   APPEARANCES: Al Meghji Michael Darcy   For The Applicant   Josée Tremblay Shane Aikat   For The Respondent   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario   For The Applicant   William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario   For The Respondent     ...

Summary of the guiding principles for Costs orders [23] This Court has full discretionary power over the amount and allocation of costs (Rule 400(1); Nova Chemicals at para 10; Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma v Maple Leaf Meats Inc, 2002 FCA 417 at para 9 [Consorzio]). ... Diner" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD   DOCKET: T-1359-07   STYLE OF CAUSE: CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   PLACE OF HEARING: held by videoconference   DATE OF HEARING: February 14, 2022   ORDER and reasons: DINER J.   DATED: MARCH 22, 2022   APPEARANCES: Michael Barrack Max Shapiro Naiara Toker   For The Plaintiff   Michael Ezri Joanna Hill Linsey Rains   For The Defendant   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON LLP Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario   For The Plaintiff   Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario   For The Defendant     ...

Facts   [5]                On October 10, 2002, Espace Vert signed a coproduction agreement letter with the French company Guilgamesh, for the production Mission Gibbons à Bornéo ...   [6]                On October 11, 2002, Espace Vert submitted an application for an advance ruling for international coproduction status to Telefilms Canada (Telefilm) for the production Mission Gibbons à Bornéo (affidavit of the Espace Vert representative, Exhibit P-8) ...   [7]                On October 25, 2002, Telefilm acknowledged receipt of the application for an advance ruling from Espace Vert. ...

It cannot adopt an interpretation it knows to be inferior — albeit plausible — merely because the interpretation in question appears to be available and is expedient. ... The policy is broad and includes considerations of extraordinary circumstances, errors made by the taxpayer following incorrect information given by the CRA, and “ other circumstances ” [emphasis added]. ... Moubayed, Élisabeth Robichaud and Luca Teolis FOR THE APPLICANTS Laurent Bartleman, Aleksandrs Zemdegs and Anna Kirk FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP Barristers & Solicitors Montréal (Québec) FOR THE APPLICANTS Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT   ...