Search - 2005年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

Milot Igor Kastelyanets Counsel for the Respondent: Dominique Gallant Meaghan Mahadeo   JUDGMENT           The appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 2009 taxation year is allowed with costs.   ... Drouin Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada     [1]               Income Tax Act, RSC, 1985, c 1 (5th Supp). [2]               Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 9-10. [3]           Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 12-13. [4]           Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 13. [5]           Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 16. [6]           Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 16. [7]           Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Cross-Examination at 90. [8]           Transcript, Linda Lockhart: Direct Examination at 160. [9]           Transcript, Linda Lockhart: Direct Examination at 140. [10]          Transcript, Linda Lockhart: Direct Examination at 140. [11]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 26. [12]          Transcript, Linda Lockhart: Direct Examination at 153. [13]          Transcript, Linda Lockhart: Direct Examination at 150. [14]          Transcript, Linda Lockhart: Direct Examination at 154. [15]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 21. [16]          Transcript, Linda Lockhart: Direct Examination at 142. [17]          Transcript, Linda Lockhart: Direct Examination at 149. [18]          Transcript, Linda Lockhart: Direct Examination at 143. [19]          Transcript, Linda Lockhart: Direct Examination at 166-167. [20]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 24; See also Transcript, Linda Lockhart: Direct Examination at 154. [21]          Transcript, Linda Lockhart: Direct Examination at 155. [22]          Transcript, Linda Lockhart: Direct Examination at 155. [23]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 26. [24]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 27. [25]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 29. [26]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 28. [27]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 29-30. [28]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 46. [29]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 41. [30]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 42-43. [31]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 45. [32]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 46. [33]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 28. [34]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 20. [35]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 58; Exhibit AR-1, Donation cheque, Tab 1. [36]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 58. [37]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Cross-Examination at 101. [38]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 60. [39]          Exhibit AR-1, Donation receipt, Tab 2. [40]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Cross-Examination at 103. [41]          Exhibit AR-1, Whitby land development plan, Tab 17; Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 49. [42]          Transcript, Linda Lockhart: Direct Examination at 170. [43]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 39. [44]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 38; the appellant also met with Solutions 21 once in 2009 at their new office in Markham, which he found to be even more impressive. [45]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 39. [46]          Transcript, Linda Lockhart: Direct Examination at 149. [47]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 18. [48]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 56. [49]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 50. [50]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 51. [51]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Cross Examination at 106. [52]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 60. [53]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 61. [54]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 61. [55]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 61. [56]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 61. [57]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 62. [58]          Exhibit AR-1, Reassessment December 29, 2011, Tab 14. [59]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 63. [60]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 66. [61]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 64. [62]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 66. [63]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 66. [64]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 76. [65]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 68. [66]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 71. [67]          Exhibit AR-1, 2009 tax return, Tab 6. [68]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 71. [69]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Cross-Examination at 120. [70]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Cross-Examination at 120. [71]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 71. [72]          Exhibit AR-1, 2009 tax return, Tab 6. [73]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 75. [74]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 75. [75]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 74. [76]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 33. [77]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 33. [78]          Exhibit AR-1, CRA inquiry, Tab 8. [79]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 79. [80]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 80; Exhibit AR-1, CRA inquiry, Tab 8. [81]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 80; Exhibit AR-1, Solutions 21 letter, Tab 9. [82]          Exhibit AR-1, Solutions 21 letter, Tab 9. [83]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 81. [84]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 81. [85]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 83. [86]          Transcript, Brian Bolduc: Direct Examination at 83. [87]          Torres v The Queen, 2013 TCC 380, which was upheld in Strachan v Canada, 2015 FCA 60. [88]          R v Sansregret, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570. [89]          R v Hinchey, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1128. [90]          Supra, at note 87. [91]          Supra, at note 88. [92]          Supra, at note 89. [93]          Supra, at note 87. [94]          Supra, at note 87. [95]          Income Tax Act, supra note 1 at s 163(2). [96]          Income Tax Act, supra note 1 at s 163(3). [97]          Torres, supra at note 87. [98]          Supra, at note 89. [99]          Supra, at note 88. [100]         Wynter v Canada, 2017 FCA 195. [101]         In this appeal, counsel for the appellant was the counsel for Ms. ... The same argument was made in Wynter, namely, that Torres and Strachan had not correctly applied the test formulated for “wilful blindness” by the Supreme Court of Canada. [102]         Supra at note 87. [103]         Bhatti v R, 2013 TCC 143. [104]         Brochu v R, 2011 TCC 75 at para 22; See also Janovsky v R, 2013 TCC 140 and Atutornu v R, 2014 TCC 174. [105]         De Gennaro v R, 2016 TCC 108, at para 70; Anderson v R, 2016 TCC 93 at para 65. [106]         Supra, at note 87. [107]         Venne v Canada (Minister of National Revenue), [1984] CTC 223 at para 37. [108]         Lauzon v R, 2016 TCC 71 at para 25, confirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal on 2016 FCA 298. [109]         DeCosta v R, 2005 TCC 545, at para 11. [110]         Farm Business Consultants Inc v Canada, [1994] 2 CTC 2450 at para 26. [111]       Villeneuve v Canada, 2004 FCA 20;  Panini v The Queen, 2006 FCA 224. [112]         Supra, at note 100. [113]         Supra, at note 111 and 87. ...

Defendant ORDER AND REASONS I.   Introduction [1]   The question before the Court is whether to add Taro Pharmaceuticals Inc. ... II.   Background [2]   The background to these cases is set out in the February 14, 2019 Order issued by the Case Management Judge, Mireille Tabib, reported at 2019 FC 191 (the February 2019 Order). ... V.   Conclusion [38]   For these reasons, I find that in the particular circumstances of this case, it is in the interests of justice to add Taro and Sandoz as defendants to the hearing of common issues currently set for Teva and Apotex. [39]   The trial preparations for all of the defendants will proceed as currently scheduled. ...

He had already been audited by the revenue agency [CRA] for the taxation years 2004 and 2005, this audit having been completed in 2007. ... Michael Palles, Translator FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1386-18   STYLE OF CAUSE: MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE v ANTHONY IZMIRLIAN   PLACE OF HEARING: mONTRÉAL, QUEBEC   DATE OF HEARING: DeCEMBeR 10, 2018   ORDER AND REASONS: MARTINEAU J.   DATED: january 16, 2019   APPEARANCES: Louis Sébastien Annie Laflamme (Student-at-law) fOr the applicant Serge Fournier Nicole Platanitis for the respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec   for the applicant BCF LLP Montréal, Quebec   for the respondent   ...

RENNIE J.A.   BETWEEN:     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN     Appellant     and     CHR INVESTMENT CORPORATION     Respondent   Heard by online video conference hosted by the registry on February 4, 2021. ... RENNIE J.A.   BETWEEN:     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN     Appellant     and     CHR INVESTMENT CORPORATION     Respondent   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WEBB J.A. [1] The issue in this appeal is whether the Crown should be obligated to respond to six undertaking requests made during the discovery examination of the representative of the Crown. ... Canada, 2005 SCC 54, at para. 66 (Canada Trustco) (and confirmed in Copthorne Holdings Ltd. v. ...

LEBLANC J.A.   BETWEEN:     ERIC SAVICS     Appellant     and     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN     Respondent   Heard by online video conference hosted by the registry on November 30, 2020. ... LEBLANC J.A.   BETWEEN:     ERIC SAVICS     Appellant     and     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN     Respondent   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WEBB J.A. [1] This appeal arises as a result of the reassessment of Mr. ... Drouin Deputy Attorney General of Canada For The Respondent   ...

Russell” Russell J.   Citation: 2022 TCC 87 Date: July 29, 2022 Docket: 2020-582(IT)I BETWEEN: JEFFREY C. CHAN, Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent.   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Russell J. ... Russell DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 29, 2022 APPEARANCES:   Counsel for the Appellant: Jesse Waslowski Counsel for the Respondent: Christopher Ware   COUNSEL OF RECORD: For the Appellant: Name: Jesse Waslowski   Firm: McCarthy Tétrault LLP For the Respondent: François Daigle Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada     ...

A reviewing court must take a “reasons first” approach to assess whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justifiable in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints (Vavilov at paras 15, 99; Mason at paras 59-61). ... "Paul Favel" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1549-23   STYLE OF CAUSE: QING FANG v MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE   PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia   DATE OF HEARING: April 10, 2024   JUDGMENT AND reasons: FAVEL J.   DATED: september 6, 2024   APPEARANCES: QING FANG   self-represented Applicant     CRYSTAL CHOI   For The Respondent   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: QING FANG SURREY, BC   SELF-REPRESENTED APPLICANT   DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE VANCOUVER, BC   For The Respondent     ...

To make this determination, the reviewing court asks whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision”: Vavilov at para 99. ... Susan Elliott" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-3825-22   STYLE OF CAUSE: THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION v DEMAINE ATHOL ASPHALL   PLACE OF HEARING: HELD BY WAY OF VIDEOCONFERENCE   DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 1, 2023   JUDGMENT AND REASONS: ELLIOTT J.   DATED: AUGUST 9, 2023   APPEARANCES: Christopher Ezrin For The Applicant   Benjamin Liston   For The Respondent   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario   For The Applicant   Refugee Law Office Legal Aid Ontario Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent     ...

AND LUCE PAQUET   PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec   DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 26, 2020   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: GASCON J.   DATED: APRIL 7, 2020   APPEARANCES: Stéphanie Lauriault   FOR THE CREDITOR   Piero Iannuzzi   For the JUDGMENT DEBTOR, GARNISHEE AND THIRD PARTY   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec   FOR THE CREDITOR Mitchell Gattuso S.e.n.c. Montréal, Quebec   For the JUDGMENT DEBTOR, GARNISHEE AND THIRD PARTY   ...

Similarly, the Accessible Canada Act, SC 2019, c 10 defines ‘disability’ as “any impairment, including a physical, mental, intellectual, cognitive, learning, communication or sensory impairment — or a functional limitation — whether permanent, temporary or episodic in nature, or evident or not, that, in interaction with a barrier, hinders a person’s full and equal participation in society” (s 2). ... These documents include: Exhibit N – Note from Dr. Paul Nijmeh, dated April 25, 2022; Exhibit Y – Letter from Department of Justice, dated March 28, 2023; Exhibit Z – Letter from Revikka Balachandran, dated May 15, 2023; Exhibit AA – Email from Revikka Balachandran, dated April 11, 2023; Exhibit AB – Email from Revikka Balachandran, dated May 15, 2023; Exhibit AF – Email from Revikka Balachandran, dated August 21, 2023; Exhibit AG – Email from Revikka Balachandran, dated November 2, 2023; and Exhibit AI – Letter from Orsjon Beqari, dated December 10, 2023. [39] Generally, a party may not submit new evidence on an application for judicial review (Bernard v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2015 FCA 263 at para 13; Delios v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FCA 117 at para 42). ... Consequently, the Applicant cannot now claim a breach of procedural fairness, based on the election and waivers made at the time by her and her counsel (Bilal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1692 at para 24). [63] The Applicant asked and responded to questions. ...