Search - 2005年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

  [41]            On March 29, 2005, CRA instructed that the assets be moved. ...   [43]            In April 2005, the Plaintiffs filed proceedings in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador challenging the executions in January 2005. ...   [103]        The Plaintiffs also point to execution action taken in January 2005, prior to the adverse judgment in May 2005, as further proof of this part of the claim. ...

On July 19, 2005, Mr. So, accompanied by another auditor employed by the CRA, met with Ms. ... E) Major business asset acquisitions and dispositions: Acquisitions/Dispositions: Item acquired/                                                                                        Percentage disposed of                            Date         Cost         Proceeds                                 Commercial Use-------------                               ------        --------     --------------             ---------------------- 2. ... i.e.                 Principal/Primary Residence                     Cottage/Time Shares/Vacation Properties                     Rental Properties                     Development Property                     Vacant Land                     Farm Land List vehicles bought, sold or owned during the audit period. ...

Introduction [1]                This is an application pursuant to section 51.2 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, SC 2005, c 46 [the Act or the PSDPA], for judicial review of a decision dated September 6, 2012 [the decision], of the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner [the Office of the PSIC], which refused to accept the applicant’s disclosures of wrongdoing.     ... Was the Deputy Commissioner’s decision reasonable?   VI.      Statutory provisions   Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, SC 2005, c 46       8.   ... (c) a gross mismanagement in the public sector; Loi sur la protection des fonctionnaires divulgateurs d’actes répréhensibles, LC 2005, ch 46   8.   ...

It appears that the Applicant, despite being advised of the tax debt in March 1996, waited until 2005 to find out why the CRA claimed he owed a tax debt. Details about the Applicant’s tax debt were given to the Applicant’s representatives in 2005 and 2006 ... Indeed, the Court of Appeal came to the opposite conclusion in Walker v Canada, 2005 FCA 393, [2006] 1 CTC 130 [Walker].  ...

Quastel contested this reassessment by way of a Notice of Objection dated March 2, 2005. ... Quastel filed a Notice of Objection of this assessment on March 2, 2005. ...

    [3]                Since 2005, the Canada Revenue Agency (Agency) has issued eight notices of reassessment to the male applicant: a.        on April 18, 2005, for the 2000 to 2003 taxation years; b.        on September 1, 2005, for the 2004 taxation year; c.         on September 25, 2006, for the 2005 taxation year; d.       on November 13, 2007, for the 2006 taxation year; e.        ...

I fix them at a lump sum of $900.           ORDER   THIS COURT ORDERS that:   1.        Cory Stanchfield shall comply with the RFI he received from the Minister and provide to the CRA officer, acting under the authority conferred by the Act or other person designated, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order the following information: a)       Civic address where Cory Stanchfield currently resides; b)       Name of all employers for Cory Stanchfield from January 1, 2005 to the present which is to include all relations where wages or contract fees were paid as well as where work was done under a “barter” style agreement; c)       A complete list, including source names, address and amounts of all other income, gifts, loans or other sources of income for Cory Stanchfield for the period January 1, 2005 to the present; d)       A complete list of all bank accounts and investment accounts which is to include any U.S. domiciled or offshore bank accounts for which Cory Stanchfield has signing authority for the period January 1, 2005 to the present; 2.         ... Stanchfield in the amount of $900.   “Johanne Gauthier”   Judge                                       FEDERAL COURT   NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD     DOCKET:                                           T-1239-08   STYLE OF CAUSE:                           THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE V. ...

To the extent that the Applicant is challenging the merits of the inadmissibility decision, even if the truth of the Applicant’s explanation were accepted, he is still inadmissible because an innocent failure to provide material information still constitutes misrepresentation (Tofangchi at paras 33,40; Jiang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 942 at para 35 (“ Jiang ”); Wang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1059 at paras 56-58 (“ Wang 2005 ”); Wang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 647 at paras 24-25; Smith v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1020 at para 10 (“ Smith ”)). ... Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 436 (F.C.T.D.), Khan v. ... Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1059 (F.C.T.D.), aff’d on other grounds, 2006 FCA 345 (F.C.A.)). ...

  [26]            On July 4, 2005, subsequent to CAVCO’s letter of June 13, 2005, Annie Bourdeau, Tooncan’s representative, contacted Ms.  ...   [28]            On September 9, 2005, i.e., prior to the deadline of October 31, 2005, the applicant wrote to Kenny Duggan, case analyst at Telefilm, to explain the situation to him (Affidavit of Tooncan’s representative, Exhibit P‑19) ...   [29]            Mr. Duggan replied by e‑mail on September 12, 2005 (Affidavit of Tooncan’s representative, Exhibit P‑19): [translation]. . . ...

As such, it would not be an efficient use of judicial resources to grant an extension of time. [43] Furthermore, I am mindful that time limits exist in the public interest to bring finality to administrative decisions: Canada v Berhad, 2005 FCA 267 at para 60; Cossy v Canada Post Corporation, 2021 FC 559 at para 21; Lesly at para 18. ... Turley” Judge   FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: 25-T-57   STYLE OF CAUSE: MICHAEL WETERINGS v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA   MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO, PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES, SOR/98-106   judgment and reasons: TURLEY J.   DATED: jUNE 13, 2025   WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Michael J. Weterings   For The Applicant ON HIS OWN BEHALF   Jennifer Rogers   For The Respondent   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia   FOR THE RESPONDENT     ...