Search - 2005年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

Irreparable harm must flow from clear and non-speculative evidence (AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2011 FC 505 at para 56, aff’d 2011 FCA 211; Aventis Pharma SA v Novopharm Ltd, 2005 FC 815 at paras 59-61, aff’d 2005 FCA 390). ... As was held by the Federal Court of Appeal in Le-Vel Brands, LLC v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FCA 66, at para 14, with respect to Rule 109 of the Federal Courts Rules, the rule is “[…] is not a practice advisory or an optional extra. ... Conclusion [50] I conclude that the motion for a stay of removal must be dismissed because the Applicant has not satisfied the tripartite test for a stay of removal.   ...

Overview [1]                Mr. Stan Sandler was required to file a Foreign Income Verification Statement (Form T1135) with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CRA) in respect of his 2005 income. ... Sandler had filed his 1999, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2006 and 2007 income tax returns late; •           Mr. ... Sandler a letter in 2005 informing him that an earlier T1135 was late, but it did not impose a penalty ...

[emphasis added] [18]            Also informative is the preamble to the RFR which focuses on the reduction of air pollution: Whereas the Governor in Council is of the opinion that the proposed Regulations could make a significant contribution to the prevention of, or reduction in, air pollution resulting from, directly or indirectly, the presence of renewable fuel in gasoline, diesel fuel or heating distillate oil; … [19]            The Supreme Court has unequivocally held that the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement [RIAS] accompanying regulations can also be considered by courts in determining the purpose of the regulations and their intended application:  Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 26, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533, at para 157. [20]            The various RIASs that were published relating to the RFR indicate that Greenhouse Gas [GHG] emissions were the primary concern of the Minister when proposing the RFR. [21]            In 2005, six GHGs were added to Schedule 1 of CEPA which lists toxic substances.  The RIAS accompanying the 2005 amendments to Schedule 1 published in the Canada Gazette Part II, Vol 139, No 24, explained at p 2627 that they were added to the toxic substances list because they “have significant global warming potentials (GWPs), are long-lived and therefore of global concern… [and] have the potential to contribute substantially to climate change.”   ... The emissions of GHGs have been increasing significantly since the industrial revolution and this trend is likely to continue if no action is taken. … The Government of Canada is committed to reducing Canada’s total GHG emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020. ...

Burstyn's assignment to a permanent AU04 position. [7]         On May 3, 2005, the manager forwarded an email to Mr. ... By correspondence, dated August 25, 2005, the Director of the Windsor Tax Services Office acknowledged receipt of the August 11 th letter and stated: I have given careful consideration to the document [the reviewer] issued on August 8, 2005 clarifying her ITPR decision of March 10, 2005. ... The Agency has currently two cases before the said Court to review the reviewer's authority. [11]       On September 1, 2005, Mr. ...

Canada, 2005 FC 1354 (Scott Paper 2005) and the Federal Court of Appeal in Scott Paper Limited v. ... Except for the period contemplated by the 1982-1985 claims, the issue currently in dispute between the parties is the same as the one conclusively decided in Scott Paper 2005 and Scott Paper 2006 ... Canada, 2005 SCC 54 at paragraph 10. In accordance with the plaintiff’s argument, the Court finds that the ordinary meaning of the words of section 68, as it then was, “must … "play a dominant role in the interpretive process" ” (see paragraph 47). ...

Justice Rennie     BETWEEN:   KATHY DIMOVSKI       Applicant   and       CANADA REVENUE AGENCY         Respondent                    REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT   [1]                The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to deny the applicant’s request for relief from the payment of tax owing under the Income Tax Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.)) as a result of an over-contribution to an Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP).  ... The applicant also made deposits into the RRSP in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.   ... In consequence,  the tax liability of the applicant as a result of her over contributions is as follows:   Taxation Year Part X.1 Tax Late Filing Penalty Arrears Interest (as of Mar.18.09) 2008 $1,844     2007 $1,898 $266 $152 2006 $1,543 $262 $304 2005 $1,473 $250 $468 2004 $1,120 $190 $477 2003 $1,003 $171 $539 Total: $8,880 $1,139 $1,940   [11]            Under the Income Tax Act, the Minister is authorized to grant relief from this special tax.  ...

Before considering the merits of the parties’ arguments on this issue, and the reasonableness of the RFIs against the backdrop of those arguments, it is useful to review some of the authorities that have considered the unnamed persons provisions. (2)   Jurisprudence [35]   The Respondent submits that the leading authorities are the decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency) v Artistic Ideas Inc., 2005 FCA 68 [Artistic Ideas] and the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Redeemer Foundation v Minister of National Revenue, 2008 SCC 46 [Redeemer]. [36]   In Artistic Ideas, the Minister began an audit of Artistic Ideas Inc. ... Beyond that, the parties disagree on the precise articulation of how this issue is to be assessed. [113]   As a starting point, the Respondent relies on Canadian Bank of Commerce v Attorney General of Canada, [1962] S.C.R. 729 at page 739: The purpose of the requirement, then, is to obtain information relevant to the tax liability of some specific person or persons whose liability to taxes is under investigation; this is a purpose related to the administration or enforcement of the Act. … [114]   This point is repeated in McKinley at p 639 and Saipem Luxembourg S.A. v Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2005 FCA 218 [Saipem] at para 26. ... However, I do not consider that level of precision or detail to be necessary to meet the applicable test. [134]   The Respondent refers the Court to Nadler (Estate) v Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FC 935 [Nadler], affirmed 2005 FCA 385, in which Justice Gauthier (then a judge of the Federal Court) explained as follows (at para 9): 9   Subsection 231.2(1) of the  Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 c.1, (5 th  supplement) (the Act) expressly refers to the collection of any amount payable under the Act. ...

The CRA observed that the Applicant’s 2002 taxation return had been submitted on time, a few months after the accident, and that the 2004 and 2005 income tax returns were filed in 2007 after enforcement measures were taken but before therapy had been commenced. ... In this application, she described further her PTSD symptoms and explained that her daughter helped her file her 2004 and 2005 taxes. ... In her second application, the Applicant offered an explanation for how she had her 2004 and 2005 taxes filed and as such the CRA does not mention the 2004/2005 tax returns in its second decision letter.  ...

Through a transaction performed on January 31, 2005, it disposed of assets by rollover to 6287182 Canada Inc., a Canadian company incorporated by Mr. ...     [5]                In October 2006, a CRA auditor noticed that the applicant still had not filed Form T2062 regarding the transaction of January 31, 2005, and requested that the form be filed. ... Since no tax resulted from the rollover transaction of January 31, 2005, that consequence did not apply to us at all, so we did not file Form T2062". ...

Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) filed a Certificate on July 22, 2005 under section 223 of the ITA certifying that the Judgment Debtor was liable to CRA for unpaid income tax in the amount of $71,792.45, plus prescribed interest from July 6, 2005 to the date of payment. A Writ of Seizure and Sale was issued on          July 22, 2005 (Writ) directing the Sheriff of the Province of Alberta or any civil enforcement agency licensed pursuant to section 9 of the Alberta Civil Enforcement Act (CIA) to seize property of the Judgment Debtor which is subject to levy within the Province of Alberta ... The Writ of Seizure and Sale issued on July 22, 2005, and directed to the Sheriff of the Province of Alberta or any civil enforcement agency licensed pursuant to Section 9 of the Civil Enforcement Act of the Province of Al bert a, is hereby renewed for a period of six years from the date of this Order.   2.         ...