Search - 2005年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

Those food products are as follows: 1.      Crystallized ginger; 2.      ... Canada, 2005 SCC 54, [2005] S.C.J. 56: 11.       (…) There is no doubt today that all statutes, including the Income Tax Act, must be interpreted in a textual, contextual and purposive way. ... Smith DATE OF JUDGMENT: April 12, 2017   APPEARANCES:   Counsel for the Appellant: Michel Bourque Jacqueline A. ...

The report listed two other individuals as directors and officers (president and treasurer) of the corporation commencing July 10, 2005. [22]         In cross-examination, the Appellant stated that he viewed Mr. ... Austin testified that he left Canada in 2000 and returned in 2005. He stated that the idea for Whitesand was “hatched” at the Appellant’s home with another individual, who was the editor of the magazine at that time. ... Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada     [1]   Lines 5 to 8 of page 7 of the Transcript ...

Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 97 at para. 4, 2005 D.T.C. 2517. [46]   Also instructive on this point is the Québec Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Bernier c. ... HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN     PLACE OF HEARING: Calgary, Alberta   DATE OF HEARING: June 11, 2018   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: LASKIN J.A.   ... WEBB J.A.   DATED: JUNE 10, 2019   APPEARANCES: Gerald Grenon Kaitlin Gray   For The Appellant   Gergely Hegedus For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP Calgary, Alberta   For The Appellant   Nathalie G. ...

He has held this position since June 2005. [11]            The applicant has been married to a Canadian citizen since 1999, with whom he has seven children, all Canadian citizens. ... IV.              Issues and standard of review [40]            This application for judicial review raises the following issues: A.                 ... [53]            I agree with the respondent that the role of this Court is not to decide whether, on the evidence before the officer, there were “reasonable grounds to believe” that the essential elements of section 37 were satisfied, but only whether it was reasonable for her to conclude that there were (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Thanaratnam, 2005 FCA 122 at paragraphs 32-33). [54]            The issue of whether there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that an event occurred within the meaning of section 33 of the IRPA requires more than mere suspicion, but the standard of proof is less onerous than that of the preponderance of the evidence. ...

Miller J.       Docket: 2015-1106(IT)I BETWEEN: GILBERT LUDLOW, Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent.   ... No single factor predominates: DeCosta v The Queen, 2005 TCC 545. Analysis A. ... Appendix A   2006-01-01 to 2006-03-31 As Filed Per Audit Per Appeals Sales $20,834.00 $20,834.00 $17,227.36 GST collectible $  1,196.20 $  1,196.20 $  1,205.92 ITCs $     823.43 $     508.50 $     762.53 Net Tax $     372.77 $     687.70 $     443.39 Gross Negligence Penalties (GNP)   $      78.73 $      15.23         2006-04-01 to 2006-06-30 As Filed Per Audit Per Appeals Sales $40,775.00 $40,775.00 $35,724.37 GST collectible $  2,500.01 $  2,500.01 $  2,500.71 ITCs $  1,643.47 $  1,033.19 $  1,242.84 Net Tax $     856.54 $  1,466.82 $  1,254.01 Gross Negligence Penalties   $     152.57 $     100.16         2006-07-01 to 2006-09-30 As Filed Per Audit Per Appeals Sales $54,906.00 $54,906.00 $49,316.19 GST collectible $  2,915.47 $  2,915.47 $  2,958.97 ITCs $  1,978.46 $  1,198.31 $  1,377.89 Net Tax $     937.01 $  1,717.16 $  1,581.08 Gross Negligence Penalties   $     195.04 $     150.14         2006-10-01 to 2006-12-31 As Filed Per Audit Per Appeals Sales $21,416.00 $21,416.00 $20,711.42 GST collectible $ 1,212.26 $ 1,212.26 $ 1,242.69 ITCs $ 1,514.89 $ 1,210.26 $ 1,444.09 Net Tax ($   302.63) $       2.00 ($   201.40) Gross Negligence Penalties   $      76.16 $      17.70         2007-01-01 to 2007-03-31 As Filed Per Audit Per Appeals Sales $63,745.00 $63,745.00 $58,391.08 GST collectible $ 3,463.85 $ 4,170.04 $3,503.46 ITCs $ 2,906.37 $ 2,106.48 $2,536.39 Net Tax $    557.48 $ 2,063.56 $967.08 Gross Negligence Penalties   $    199.97 $92.50         2007-04-01 to 2007-06-30 As Filed Per Audit Per Appeals Sales $52,302.00 $52,302.00 $47,451.75 GST collectible $ 2,912.41 $ 3,751.08 $ 2,847.11 ITCs $ 2,768.37 $ 1,845.98 $ 2,328.82 Net Tax $    144.04 $ 1,905.10 $    518.29 Gross Negligence Penalties   $   230.60 $    109.89 2007-07-01 to 2007-09-30 As Filed Per Audit Per Appeals Sales $42,730.00 $42,730.00 $41,432.54 GST collectible $ 2,534.07 $ 2,795.81 $ 2,485.95 ITCs $ 1,686.31 $ 1,118.33 $ 1,141.29 Net Tax $    847.76 $ 1,677.48 $ 1,344.66 Gross Negligence Penalties   $    141.99 $    136.26         2007-10-01 to 2007-12-31 As Filed Per Audit Per Appeals Sales $27,021.00 $27,021.00 $26,003.00 GST collectible $ 1,529.53 $ 1,747.56 $ 1,560.18 ITCs $ 1,503.26 $    968.44 $ 1,004.20 Net Tax $      26.27 $    779.12 $    555.98 Gross Negligence Penalties   $    133.70 $    124.77         2008-01-01 to 2008-03-31 As Filed Per Audit Per Appeals Sales $23,560.00 $23,560.00 $23,560.00 GST collectible $ 1,446.33 $ 1,446.33 $ 1,178.00 ITCs $ 1,400.55 $    263.46 $    592.77 Net Tax $      45.78 $ 1,182.87 $    585.23 Gross Negligence Penalties   $    284.27 $    201.95         2008-04-01 to 2008-06-30 As Filed Per Audit Per Appeals Sales $35,002.00 $35,002.00 $35,002.00 GST collectible $ 1,666.76 $ 1,666.76 $ 1,750.10 ITCs $ 1,642.52 $    425.25 $   898.08 Net Tax $      24.24 $ 1,241.51 $   852.03 Gross Negligence Penalties   $    304.32 $   186.11                                         2008-07-01 to 2008-09-30 As Filed Per Audit Per Appeals Sales $45,626.00 $45,626.00 $45,626.00 GST collectible $ 2,043.37 $ 2,043.37 $ 2,281.30 ITCs $ 1,950.44 $    559.69 $ 1,118.62 Net Tax $      92.93 $ 1,483.68 $ 1,162.68 Gross Negligence Penalties   $    347.69 $    207.96         2008-10-01 to 2008-12-31 As Filed Per Audit Per Appeals Sales $29,385.00 $29,385.00 $29,385.00 GST collectible $ 1,399.28 $ 1,399.28 $ 1,469.25 ITCs $ 1,116.26 $    360.52 $ 1,713.60 Net Tax $    283.02 $ 1,038.76 ($  244.35) Gross Negligence Penalties   $    188.94              NIL           CITATION: 2016TCC35 COURT FILE NO.: 2015-146(IT)I; 2015-1106(IT)I; 2015-158(GST)I STYLE OF CAUSE: SHELLEY RAYMOND AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN GILBERT LUDLOW AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN SHELLEY RAYMOND & GILBERT LUDLOW AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: October 28, 2015 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Justice Valerie Miller DATE OF JUDGMENT: February 10, 2016 APPEARANCES:   Agent for the Appellant: Susan Cunningham Counsel for the Respondent: Tony Cheung   COUNSEL OF RECORD: For the Appellant: Name:     Firm:   For the Respondent: William F. ...

Henry, 2005 SCC 76, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 609; The Queen v. Montreal Urban Community Transit Commission, [1980] 2 F.C. 151; R. v. ... C‑26  . Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 91  , 92(10)   (a), (c), (14)  , 96  , 100  , 101  . ... Henry, 2005 SCC 76, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 609, at para. 57). [62]                           Nor did our Constitution became one of the “Laws of Canada” after 1982. ...

Justice Near     BETWEEN:   NAZAR AHMAD, HAMIDUL AMEEN, PAMELA CHEUNG, HARJINDER DHESY, NORINE GOODMAN, DEBORAH HAIRE, ANDY HENDERSON, YULIA HIDIJAT, FANNY JANG, JULIAN LEBOFSKY, RICHARD MALONE, ANNA MICHIELI, CHRISTINE NG, NELLY NG, INDRAJIT ROY, SUSAN TIERNEY, CHELLIAH VENOGOPAL, SALIM VIRJI, FRANK WONG, HELEN YI, ANNA YU, AND RANDY ZURIN       Applicants   and       CANADA REVENUE AGENCY         Respondent                    AMENDED R EASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT   [1]                This application for judicial review comprises 22 consolidated applications for judicial review concerning decisions made by Paul Loo in his capacity as a Decision Reviewer at the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA).  ... As the Applicants submit, the Respondent has committed a reviewable error in failing to abide by its own procedures (Gilchrist v Canada (Treasury Board), 2005 FC 1322, 281   FTR 135 at para 13).   ...       “ D. G. Near ” Judge FEDERAL COURT   SOLICITORS OF RECORD       DOCKET:                                          T-2132-09   STYLE OF CAUSE:                          CHRISTINE NG ET AL. v. ...

Statement of Proposed Royalties to Be Collected by SOCAN for the Public Performance or the Communication to the Public by Telecommunication, in Canada, of Musical or Dramatico‑Musical Works, (2005) 139 Can. ...   [24]                           With respect, we disagree.  The 1988 amendments to the Copyright Act   found at ss. 61   to 65   of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act  , were enacted in order to give effect to Articles 2005 and 2006 of the 1987 Canada-U.S. ... He found that this particular issue was “no longer contested”. [59]                           In 2005, SOCAN modified its proposed Tariff to divide it into seven categories, each dealing with a different Internet-based activity.  ...

.____________________________________________________________________ Appeal heard on February 17 and November 16, 2005 at Vancouver, British Columbia Before: The Honourable Justice Diane Campbell Appearances: Counsel for the Appellant: Samantha Mason Counsel for the Respondent: Bruce Senkpiel____________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT           The appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 1997 taxation year is dismissed, with costs, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment. ... The Evidence:           Ruben Corvalan [4]      The Appellant was born in Chile and moved to Canada in 1974. ... Note 11:    See P.W. Hogg, J.E. Magee, "Principles of Canadian Income Tax Law", 2d ed. 1997, para. 16.3(b). 21         The Tax Court judge was mindful of the difficulty of the task he was about to embark on.     ...

Instead, on June 18, 2010, the CRA resubmitted certain questions to Khaled for response, this time pertaining to business details and carried back business losses for 2005 through 2009 taxation years. ... The Queen, 2005 TCC 545, at paragraph 11 as: a) the magnitude of the omission in relation to the income declared, b) the opportunity the taxpayer had to detect the error, c) the taxpayer’s education and apparent intelligence, d) genuine effort to comply. 3.   ... Drouin Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada     ...