Search - 2002年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

Hargrave, Prothonotary BETWEEN:                                                                 ARTHUR WEBSTER                                                                                                                                                        Applicant                                                                                  and                                                              ATTORNEY GENERAL                                                                         OF CANADA                                                                                                                                                    Respondent                                                             REASONS FOR ORDER HARGRAVE P. [1]                 This motion is to strike out an application for judicial review. ... Webster applied in proceeding 02-T-77 for an extension of time within which to bring the application, contending that the Minister had breached the rules of natural justice and the principle of audi alteram partem, a breach of which the Applicant was unaware of until the cross-examination of the Minister's representative, the Tax Department Auditor, 31 October 2002. ... Canada [2002] 3 C.T.C. 339, Robertson v. Minister of National Revenue 2001 211 F.T.R. 172, Braceland v. ...

The decision of the RAD, confirming the RPD decision, is reasonable (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at para 43; Akhtar v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 CFPI 541 at para 12; Kirac v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 CFPI 362 at paras 26 and 27). [10]   Therefore, the application for judicial review is dismissed. ... Shore" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-715-19   STYLE OF CAUSE: FAZAL KARAM v MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION   PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec   DATE OF HEARING: August 22, 2019   JUDGMENT AND REASONS: SHORE J.   DATED: August 29, 2019   APPEARANCES: Mark J. Gruszczynski   For The Applicant   Suzanne Trudel   For The Respondent   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Canada Immigration Team Westmount, Quebec   For The Applicant   Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec   For The Respondent     ...

This practice is in accordance with the policy of the Respondent in EP-001 dated April 29, 2002.   6)         Furnace oil and stove oil are generally intended for use as heating oil but are also suitable for use in engines of the compression-ignition type.   7)         Dupont is not the actual user of the furnace oil or stove oil as purchased by it from its suppliers.   8)         Dupont did not provide any end-use certificates to its suppliers when it purchased stove oil or furnace oil.   9)         Dupont also purchased diesel oil from its suppliers. ... The statutory scheme is very clear in my view.                                           ... “François Lemieux” Judge                                                                 APPENDIX “A” TO THIS JUDGMENT     1.  ...

Cordeau, 2002 D.T.C. 7127. The search for forfeiture of term by the garnisher in right of a judgment debtor is not a measure which seeks to involve this Court in the validity of the contract, here the loan, between the parties. ... "Richard Morneau"                            Prothonotary Certified true translation Suzanne M. ... Tr., LL.L.                           FEDERAL COURT                                                            Date: 20031104                                                       Docket: IT A-12-00 In the matter of the Income Tax Act- and- In the matter of an assessment or assessments by the Minister of National Revenue under one or more of the Income Tax Act, Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance Act AGAINST: MOLLY STEIN                                                           Judgment debtor and SANDRA STEIN                                                                     Garnishee                      REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER                                                              FEDERAL COURT                                                       SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET:                                           IT A-12-00 STYLE OF CAUSE:                           In the matter of the Income Tax Act- and- In the matter of an assessment or assessments by the Minister of National Revenue under one or more of the Income Tax Act, Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance Act AGAINST: MOLLY STEIN                                                                                                                                    Judgment debtor and SANDRA STEIN                                                                                                                                              Garnishee PLACE OF HEARING:                                             Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING:                                               November 3, 2003 REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY DATED:                                                                      November 4, 2003 APPEARANCES: Pierre Lamothe                                                              for the judgment creditor Konstantinos Voggas                                                     for the garnishee SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Morris Rosenberg                                                          for the judgment creditor Deputy Attorney General of Canada Sweibel, Novek                                                             for the garnishee Montréal, Quebec ...

(Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1 at para 98.) [5]   The evidence on file, such as that of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, points at and clearly supports that the BNP as an organization engaged in terrorism. ... Shore" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-259-19   STYLE OF CAUSE: FERDOUS, QUAZI MOHAMMED v THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS   PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec   DATE OF HEARING: August 22, 2019   JUDGMENT AND REASONS: SHORE J.   DATED: August 29, 2019   APPEARANCES: Sohana Sara Siddiky   For The Applicant   Daniel Latulippe   For The Respondent   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Sohana Sara Siddiky, Lawyer Montréal, Quebec   For The Applicant   Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec   For The Respondent     ...

The Second Level Committee decided to deny the applicant’s Second Level Request on October 16, 2007 on the following grounds: (a)        the guidelines established in GST Memorandum G500-3-2-1;   (b)        the applicant had a total income of $41,813, $71,812 and $88,730 in his 2004, 2005 and 2006 taxation years, respectively;   (c)        the total income of the applicant’s spouse was $19,619, $20,079 and $20,373 in the 2004, 2005 and 2006 taxation years, respectively;   (d)        the applicant contributed a total of $34,900 between 1997 and 2002 to his RRSPs, while his spouse withdrew $6,452 from her RRSPs;   (e)        the applicant had a one-half interest in his personal residence, with an equity share equal to approximately $116,550;   (f)         the combined net monthly income of the applicant and his spouse was $3,060 in 2006;   (g)        in summary, the applicant failed to demonstrate that he suffered financial hardship in any efforts to pay his GST debt;   (h)        the applicant had a history of non-compliance with his obligations under the Act and had not exercised a reasonable amount of care in conducting his affairs under the self-assessment system under the Act;   (i)         the applicant had not acted quickly to remedy any delay or omission in making GST payments;   (j)         the applicant had allowed interest to accrue on his GST debt;   (k)        the applicant had not made a voluntary payment on his GST debt since May 12, 2005;   (l)         despite the applicant’s family medical issues, the applicant maintained the ability to earn income and take responsibility for the GST debt;   (m)       the CRA responded to the applicant’s letter dated April 2, 2002 (setting out his due diligence defence) by letter dated May 1, 2002;   (n)        the CRA was not obligated to deliver Requirements to Pay by registered mail (despite the conclusion in the Second Level Report, prior to amendments to the Act in force on October 20, 2000, section 317 of the Act provided that the Minister was required to deliver Requirements to Pay by registered mail, certified mail or personal delivery);   (o)        as there was insufficient equity following the sale of the company’s property to satisfy the company’s GST debt, the CRA released its judgments registered against the company’s property; and   (p)        in summary, there was no indication of any undue delay or error by the CRA in its collection action ... These errors and delays include: (a)        Failure to send a Requirement to Pay via registered mail as was required in section 317 of the Act as it was in effect at the time;   (b)        Releasing liens on property that was sold with the sole intent of satisfying the debt to CRA;   (c)        A pre-assessment letter was sent more than two years after the business was closed;   (d)        A due diligence defence was submitted on April 1, 2002. ...   [30]            Following receipt of a pre-assessment letter dated January 23, 2002, more than two years after the close of the business in 1999, the applicant submitted a due diligence defence on April 1, 2002 but no response was issued until May 21, 2003, nearly 14 months later ...

Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCT 574                                                                                                                                              Date: 20030514                                                                                                                                           Docket: T-308-01                                                                                                                                 Citation: 2003 FCT 574 Between:                                                    CHRISCON INVESTMENTS LTD.                                                                                                                                                        ... Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (May 31, 2002), T-1030-01, 2002 FCT 618).       ... JUDGE OTTAWA, ONTARIO May 14, 2003                                                        FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA                                                                     TRIAL DIVISION                                 NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET:                                                            T-308-01 STYLE OF CAUSE:                                            CHRISCON INVESTMENTS LTD. v. ...

Those applicants relied on Capital Vision Inc v Minister of National Revenue, 2002 FCT 1317 [Capital Vision] to support their position that the Minister bore the burden of proving her compliance with s 231.2(1). ... Toutefois, l’appel n’a pas pour effet de suspendre l’exécution de l’ordonnance, sauf ordonnance contraire d’un juge du tribunal saisi de l’appel. …. …. ... Lubetsky Sarah Cormack For The RespondentS SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP Toronto, Ontario For The RespondentS   ...

First, the Act specifies the circumstances in which personal information may be collected by a government institution, and what use the institution may make of it: only personal information that relates directly to an operating program or activity of the government institution that collects it may be collected (s. 4)” (Lavigne v Canada (Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages), 2002 SCC 53 at para 27 [Lavigne]). [132]        Personal information includes information on an individual’s employment history or financial transactions in which he or she participated. ... Canada (Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 773, at para. 24; Dagg v. ... VI.              Conclusion [145]        In light of the foregoing, the decisions of the Treasury Board and CSC are reasonable. ...

acting recklessly; b.   acting in a grossly negligent manner; c.   acting in a manner that was clearly wrong; d.   ... Whether the test is subjective, objective or something in between is left unanswered. [8]   Although the earlier motions to strike in these cases dealt with the scope of legislative immunity, in Mackin v New Brunswick (Minister of Finance); Rice v New Brunswick, 2002 SCC 13, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 405 [Mackin], the Supreme Court referred more broadly to government immunity and to the protection afforded to “the government and its representatives” for exercising their powers in “good faith”.   ... Mitchell Matt Huculak For The Respondent   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Grace Snowdon & Terepocki LLP Abbotsford, BC   For The ApplicantS   Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, BC For The Respondent   ...