Search - connection

He received a 12-month suspended prison sentence. [10]            On March 24, 2011, the applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of video theft—committed on August 11, 2008—and was ordered to pay a fine and costs, for a sum of more than $800. [11]            On August 2, 2010, the applicant was involved in the robbery and second-degree murder of two individuals in connection with a drug deal. ... On October 7, 2011, the applicant was arrested in connection with the events of August 2, 2010 and was detained during his trial. ...

The appellant company, whose principal business is the manufacture or production of electricity for sale to its customers, contends that the transformers it uses in that connection are “machinery and apparatus sold to or imported by manufacturers or producers for use by them directly in the manufacture or production of goods” within the meaning of para.  ... Appellant contends that the transformers it uses in connection with the production and distribution of electricity are apparatus used “directly in the manufacture or production of goods” within the meaning of that provision. ...

The applicant will be entitled to the costs incurred in connection with the application for judicial review.                                                                                                   ... The applicant will be entitled to the costs incurred in connection with the application for judicial review.                                                                                             ...

In this connection, the evidence was that the employer had in fact contributed to the appellant's pension plan and that the trial judge could not initially exclude the application of art. 553(7) of the Code of Civil Procedure (see para. 8 of the appellant's detailed affidavit, appeal book p. 28). [7]         Despite his preliminary conclusion, the trial judge proceeded with his analysis and came to the conclusion that in any event the exceptions from seizure mentioned in the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure could not be set up against the respondent. ... Constance St-Hilaire, 2001 FCA 63, an unreported judgment rendered on March 19, 2001 (A-355-99), were cited in this connection. [12]       Counsel for the appellant also noted that the interpretation accepted by the trial judge created a paradox in that the exemption of a tax debtor's property from seizure would depend on the recovery procedure selected by National Revenue. ...

Levert pleaded guilty in connection with the instant cases to charges of conspiracy to avoid tax and enabling tax of $110,000 to be avoided by taxpayers, including the respondents, for the 1986 to 1988 taxation years. ... A probation order for two years was also made against him, prohibiting him from acting directly or indirectly as an appraiser, promoter, broker or consultant in connection with gifts of art works to non-profit organizations. [5]      Mr. ...

All Confidential Information shall be retained in the custody of t rial counsel and shall not be used by trial counsel for any purpose other than in connection with this action subject to the provisions of this order. ... Trial counsel and such person to whom Confidential Information is disclosed pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 of this order shall not use any Confidential Information or the contents or the subject matter thereof for any purpose other than in connection with this action subject to the provisions of this order [5]                There have been extensive discoveries including third party discoveries in the case both relating to Canadian and international issues, of which approximately 65 days were devoted to the discoveries of Glaxo Canada's nominees. [6]                The parties also attempted to draft Agreed Statements of Fact and approximately 50 of these on a variety of topics were drafted by either Glaxo Canada's counsel or the appellant's counsel and then sent to the opposing party for review and comments. ...

In other words, a logical connection between the verdict and the basis for the verdict must be apparent. A detailed description of the judge's process in arriving at the verdict is unnecessary. (3)        In determining whether the logical connection between the verdict and the basis for the verdict is established, one looks to the evidence, the submissions of counsel and the history of the trial to determine the "live" issues as they emerged during the trial. ...

General limitations 18(1) In computing the income of a taxpayer from a business or property no deduction shall be made in respect of General limitation (a)     an outlay or expense except to the extent that it was made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the business or property; Personal and living expenses (h) personal or living expenses of the taxpayer, other than travel expenses incurred by the taxpayer while away from home in the course of carrying on the taxpayer's business; Definitions 248(1) in this Act, “personal or living expenses” – “personal or living expenses” includes (a)    the expenses of properties maintained by any person for the use or benefit of the taxpayer or any person connected with the taxpayer by blood relationship, marriage or common-law partnership or adoption, and not maintained in connection with a business carried on for profit or with a reasonable expectation of profit, (b)    the expenses, premiums or other costs of a policy of insurance, annuity contract or other like contract if the proceeds of the policy or contract are payable to or for the benefit of the taxpayer or a person connected with the taxpayer by blood relationship, marriage or common-law partnership or adoption, and (c)     expenses of properties maintained by an estate or trust for the benefit of the taxpayer as one of the beneficiaries; Analysis [19]         The appellant claimed a deduction of legal expenses and damages totaling $27,078 in his 2011 income tax return. ... The activities carried out by the appellant in 2001 and 2002 in connection with the airline venture did not constitute a source of income for him. [25]         Even if the airline activities were to constitute a source of income for the appellant, that source of income disappeared when Val Air Inc. declared bankruptcy in 2004 and when Les Lignes Aériennes Val Air Inc. was dissolved in 2008. ...

The child either already had been primarily living with his father, the Appellant, with the Appellant picking up all child expenses in lieu of paying the monthly support amounts, or the child commenced to do so in 2013 with his mother’s impending or actual move to Drayton Valley. [13]          Also in connection with subsection 118(5) there seems no issue between the parties that the support payments required by the December 2, 2010 Order would each constitute a subsection 56.1(4) defined “support amount”. ... In this regard I concur with the decision of this Court in Young, supra, per Sarchuk, J., that no statutory language used in or in connection with subsection 118(1) indicates that the deductions may be prorated for a taxation year, noting in contrast with other provisions in the Act by which Parliament has explicitly provided for proration. [27]          A similar conclusion was reached in Giroux, supra. ...

On line 229 of his income tax return, the appellant also claimed the amount of $27,414 as other employment expenses. [9]   On July 30, 2015, the appellant asked the Ville de Montréal to pay for the costs incurred in connection with the searches performed at his home and borough office. [10]   In a letter dated August 5, 2015, the Ville de Montréal informed the appellant that it refused to cover the fees of the appellant’s legal counsel because it was not a legal proceeding under the Cities and Towns Act and because the appellant was not prosecuted in connection with the searches. [11]   In a letter dated October 3, 2016, the Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”) asked the appellant to provide explanations regarding the $27,414 employment expense. [12]   In response to the CRA’s request for information, the appellant indicated, in a letter dated October 18, 2016, that the legal fees had been incurred to preserve his right to continue his employment with the Ville de Montréal and to receive the resulting remuneration. [13]   The CRA did not accept the explanations provided by the appellant, and the Minister made a reassessment, which disallowed the deduction of legal expenses in the amount of $27,414 because the legal expenses were not incurred to collect wages or to establish his right to wages that his employer owed him, as required under paragraph 8(1)(b) of the Act. [14]   Following this reassessment, the appellant filed a notice of objection in a letter dated February 7, 2017, in which the appellant alleged that the expense was necessary to maintain his income and that his profession’s code of conduct demanded that all necessary measures be taken to [translation] “maintain the honour, dignity and reputation of the profession and maintain the public’s trust in the profession.” [15]   Following a conference call on December 15, 2017 with the appeals officer responsible for processing the appellant’s notice of objection, the appellant sent the appeals officer a table, on January 2, 2018, showing the amounts of fees billed by McMillan LLP regarding solicitor-client privilege and other related matters. ...