Search - 2002年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Jorré J. Introduction [1]              The respondent filed a motion for the dismissal of the appeal. ... "Gaston Jorré" Jorré J.       Translation certified true on this 13th day of January 2015 Johanna Kratz, Translator CITATION: 2014 TCC 349 COURT FILE NO.: 2009-2311(GST)I STYLE OF CAUSE: JEAN BELVAL v. ... The Queen, 2002 CanLII 809 (TCC), particularly at paragraphs 39 to 42. ...

Arsenault’s notes and her testimony with respect to her conversation with the owner of the property in PEI were hearsay, I admitted them into evidence because this is an informal procedure appeal and the evidence was relevant to the appeal: Suchon v Canada, 2002 FCA 282. ... Miller J.   CITATION: 2015TCC9 COURT FILE NO.: 2013-1716(IT)I STYLE OF CAUSE: VANESSA SCOTT AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN PLACE OF HEARING: Hamilton, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: October 27, 2014 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Justice Valerie Miller DATE OF JUDGMENT: January 16, 2015   APPEARANCES:   For the Appellant: The Appellant herself Counsel for the Respondent: Devon Peavoy   COUNSEL OF RECORD: For the Appellant: Name:     Firm:   For the Respondent: William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada     ...

Hershfield" Hershfield J.         Citation: 2005TCC124 20050210 Docket: 2003-4236(IT)I   BETWEEN: NANCY MCNEIL, Appellant, And   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent.     ... Hershfield   DATE OF JUDGMENT: February 10, 2005   APPEARANCES:   Agent for the Appellant: James Duncan McNeil   Counsel for the Respondent: Raj Grewal   COUNSEL OF RECORD:   For the Appellant:   Name:     Firm:     For the Respondent: John H. ... The Queen, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 645; Pamela Stewart v. The Queen, [2001] T.C.J. ...

General Basis for Denial of HST Rebate a)      Grounds for denial [1]               The Appellant, Mr. ... Bocock DATE OF JUDGMENT: February 21, 2018   APPEARANCES:   Counsel for the Appellant: Ari A. ... Lokshin   Firm: Lokshin Law Office For the Respondent: Nathalie G. Drouin Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada     ...

“Martin Lambert” Lambert D.J.   Citation: 2024 TCC 41 Date: 20240409 Docket: 2013-2415(IT)I BETWEEN: JONATHAN A. ... He was a foster parent for a number of years starting in 2002, being paid a monthly amount by the province of British Columbia to have at-risk children live in his residence, and he was responsible for them 24 hours a day, seven days a week. ... “Martin Lambert” Lambert D.J.   CITATION: 2024 TCC 41 COURT FILE NO.: 2013-2415(IT)I STYLE OF CAUSE: JONATHAN A. ...

(payor or Diesel) from January 2, 2003 to August 31, 2003 was not insurable employment pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Employment Insurance Act (the " Act ") because Locke and the payor were related and the Minister was not satisfied the contract of employment would have been substantially similar if the payor and the appellant had been dealing with each other at arm's length. [2]      Locke testified she agreed with certain assumptions of fact set forth in paragraph 7 of the Reply to Notice of Appeal (Reply), as follows: (a)                 Remy Caron controls 100% of the voting shares of the Payor; (b)                Remy Caron is the common-law partner of the Appellant within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5 th Supp.) c. 1, as amended (the " Act "); (c)                 the Appellant and the Payor are related to each other within the meaning of the Act; (d)                the Payor operates a mobile heavy duty mechanic service; (e)                 Remy Caron performs the duties of heavy duty mechanic for the Payor; (f)                  At all times, the Appellant was employed under a contract of service with the Payor; (h)         approximately 35% of the Appellant's time was spent on bookkeeping, 60% of her time was spent designing the company logo and business cards and 5% of her time was spent on banking and parts running; (i)                   the Appellant was paid a fixed salary of $2,079.00 per month regardless of the actual number of hours she worked; (j)          Remy Caron and the Appellant determined the Appellant's work schedule to be from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, being approximately 45 hours per week; (l)          the Appellant's scheduled hours were flexible and were based on the needs and availability of both Remy Caron and the Appellant; (m)        the Appellant's hours and days of work were not recorded; (o)         the Appellant used her own vehicle when running parts for the Payor; (p)         the Appellant did not receive a mileage allowance or reimbursement in respect of the use of her vehicle; (u)         the Appellant previously worked for the Payor during the period from August 19, 2001 to November 24, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "first period of employment"); (v)                 during the first period of employment, the Appellant was hired by the Payor to do bookkeeping and run parts; (w)               the Appellant was educated as a biologist; (x)                 the Appellant had no experience as a bookkeeper; (z)         the Appellant was paid at a rate of $10.00 per hour during the first period of employment. [3]      The Minister- in subparagraph 7(g)- listed the appellant's duties as follows: occasionally running parts, bookkeeping, banking, designing a company logo and designing business cards. ... With respect to the assumptions of the Minister with respect to the graphic design aspect of her employment, and pertaining to the provision of bookkeeping services, Locke stated she agreed with these further assumptions as set forth in paragraph 7 of the Reply: (bb)       the Payor obtained bids for logo design work in the amount of between $3,000.00 to $4,000.00; (cc)       as Remy Caron performed his duties as a heavy duty mechanic away from his home and office, the Appellant was not supervised in the performance of her duties; (dd)       correspondence received by the CCRA from the Payor did not contain any company logo; (ee)       the Payor did not replace the Appellant with another employee when the Appellant ceased working for the Payor after the first period of employment and after the period in issue; (ff)         on or about September 1, 2003, the Payor engaged the services of US Multiservices Ltd. to do its bookkeeping on a regular basis; (gg)       the Payor paid US Multiservices Ltd. the amount of $1,605.00 per month for its services; (hh)       prior to August 31, 2003, US Multiservices Ltd. invoiced the Payor in the amount of $1,070.00 on June 13, 2002 and $384.20 on August 31, 2003 for its services; (ii)         Remy Caron could be called on to work at 3:00 a.m. or could work until 12:00 a.m. as the business of the Payor did not have fixed operating hours as it was an "on call" operation; (jj)         the Payor's clients did not attend the office of the Payor; (kk)       the Appellant was able to care for her child during working hours when he was ill; (ll)         the Appellant was able to make up the time spent caring for her child at a later date; (mm)     the Payor rented a shop from July, 2003 to January, 2004 in order to enable it to perform bigger jobs as well as vehicle inspections; (nn)       the business of the Payor experiences a slow down during the winter months; (pp)            the home telephone number was used by the business of the Payor up until February, 2004 at which time the telephone number was cancelled; (qq)       Remy Caron was the sole signing officer for the business bank account of the Payor. [4]      The appellant stated she spent about 35% of her time on bookkeeping and- therefore- if that percentage was applied to her total monthly salary- $2,079- she was paid approximately $730 for that aspect of her employment while Diesel was charged by US Multiservices Ltd. ... The judge may then substitute his decision for that of the Minister. [10]     In Légaré v. ...

Matrix Financial Corp., 2002 SKQB 257, which in turn was a decision of Justice Klebuc. ... a non-party is seized of ability or knowledge which will assist or inform the examination for discovery process;                                                         iii.       ... Pratch   Firm: Pushor Mitchell LLP For the Respondent: William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada     ...

In a reassessment dated December 2, 2002, the Minister denied the Appellant the credit for a wholly dependent person. [3]      In order to issue and confirm the reassessment in question, the Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact, which are set out in paragraph 5 of the amended Response to Notice of Appeal:             [translation] (a)         pursuant to a request for information from the Minister concerning the claim for a credit for a wholly dependent person, with regard to the 2001 taxation year, the Appellant indicated that the person affected was his son Yannick, born on May 30, 1989, and that he made child support payments to his former spouse; (b)         the Appellant and Carole Foisy were married on September 24, 1983; (c)         the marriage of the Appellant and Carole Foisy was dissolved on June 29, 1995, through a divorce decree rendered by the Honourable Justice André Forget; (d)         the Appellant and Carole Foisy have two children together, Yannick and Andrée; (e)         during the year in question, the Appellant lived separate and apart from Carole Foisy throughout the year; (f)          according to the Consent to Judgment dated April 13, 1999, which was homologated and given effect on April 14, 1999, through a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, the Appellant and Carole Foisy agreed on, among other things, the following measures: (i)     the Appellant and Carole Foisy will have joint legal custody, based on a 7-day rotation, of their minor children, Yannick and Andrée; (ii)    the Appellant will pay Carole Foisy, for their two minor children, Yannick and Andrée, annual support of $3,000 payable in two equal bi-monthly instalments of $125, on the 1st and 15th day of each month, as of April 15, 1999; (g)         the Minister refused to grant the Appellant a tax credit for a wholly dependent person, with regard to his son Yannick, for the 2001 taxation year because the Income Tax Act stipulates that an individual cannot claim a personal tax credit if that individual lives separate and apart from his or her former spouse and is required to pay that former spouse child support, whether that support is paid or not, but no deduction is claimed. [4]      Only the Appellant testified at the hearing. ... While that may be a laudable public policy objective, it is not one that can be advanced through a claim under subsection 15(1) of the Charter.    ... (Emphasis added) [22]     That conclusion must, in my opinion, apply to this case. ...

Before: The Honourable Justice Sylvain Ouimet Appearances:   Counsel for the Appellant: Neil T. ... The building was empty during the first two years of ownership, from 2000 to 2002. ... Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada     [1] Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp), ss 153, 227, 227.1. [2] Canada Pension Plan, RSC 1985, c C-8, ss 21, 21.1. [3] Employment Insurance Act, SC 1996, c 23, ss 82, 83. [4] Alberta Personal Income Tax Act, RSA 2000, c A-30, s 77. [5] Tax Collection Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of Alberta, March 8, 2005, available at <http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/orders/Orders_in_Council/2005/305/2005_112.html>. [6]           The payment was actually $5,001, see Respondent’s Book of Documents, Exhibit R-3, Tab 24b. [7]           Respondent’s Book of Documents, Exhibit R-1, Tab 19; Exhibit R-3, Tab 24a. [8]           Buckingham v Canada, 2011 FCA 142, [2013] 1 FCR 86. [9]           Ibid., paragraph 33. [10]          Ibid., paragraph 35. [11]          Ibid., paragraphs 35 and 37. [12]             Ibid., paragraph 40. [13]          Ibid., paragraph 38 and Kevin Patrick McGuinness, Canadian Business Corporations Law, 2nd ed (Markham, Ont: LexisNexis, 2007) at §11.9. [14]          Respondent’s Book of Documents, Exhibit R-6, Tab 14; Exhibit R-7, Tab 15; Exhibit R-8, Tab 16. [15]             Exhibit R-9. [16]             Exhibit A-1. ...

)   [14]         The Minister submits that the Court must analyze the appellant’s intention from the moment she acquired the title “ aux termes du contrat de vente ”, i.e. at the time of closing. ... The appellant signed a promise to purchase in November 2002 but did not acquire title in the property until February 2005. ... Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada     ...