Search - connection

In connection with their cattle operation the appellants had acquired a 314 acre parcel of land from the City of Calgary in 1949 in close proximity to the existing and extensive stock yards and used it as a feed lot. ...

The appellant then had casual conversations with an architect and general contractor, both of whom he had engaged in connection with work relating to his dry-cleaning business. ...

(a) Falconbridge agreed to pay to Gull Lake $2,500 for an exclusive option to purchase certain mining claims; (b) Falconbridge was to have 60 days to make an examination of the mining claims; (e) Falconbridge during the currency of the option was to have exclusive possession of the mining claims; (d) If Falconbridge before the expiry of the 60 days notified Gull Lake that it wished to proceed with the agreement, a new company was to be incorporated; (e) Upon the incorporation of the new company, Gull Lake and Falconbridge would transfer the mining claims to the new company and, as consideration for the transfer, the new company would allot to Gull Lake 500,000 of its Class ‘‘A’’ shares and would allot to Falconbridge such number of its Class ‘‘B’’ shares as could be purchased, at five cents per share, by a payment equal to $2,500 plus the amount that Falconbridge had expended in connection with the examination of the claims; (f) After the incorporation of the new company, the parties would cause the new company to enter into an agreement with Falconbridge under which Falconbridge would subscribe for shares in the new company on a specified basis and the new company would grant to Falconbridge an exclusive right or option to purchase a specified number of its Class ‘‘B’’ shares; (g) Falconbridge was under no obligation to cause any examination to be made, to expend any moneys or to perform any other act other than the payment of the $2,500. ...

Slater, became involved in some financial difficulties in connection with another apartment building project, the Arbour Glen apartments in which he held a 10% interest, the group finally gave in and accepted to consider an offer from Mr. ...

Section 21 of a Federal statute, the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1929 provided for forfeiture of a vehicle used in connection with a narcotics offence where a conviction results, without any exculpation opportunity to innocent persons as was the case in the section of the Excise Act under review in Northwest Mortgage Co. v. ...

Now, although this interpretation was given in connection with Section 39 of the Income Tax Act, I can see no reason why it should not apply as well to Section 139(5a) of the Act...’’; and see also Cameron, J., in Vancouver Towing Co. ...

The indenture then went on to say: “In this connection T. Lempicki Construction Company Limited has paid to one, Juliana Allonsius the sum of $25,650.00 and the said Aluminum Company of Canada Limited has paid to the Assignor the sum of $5000.00 Neither the said Juliana Allonsius or the Assignor shall be required to account to the Assignee for the said money so received and as against the said Assignee shall be deemed entitled to retain the said monies so received. ...

The right is, however, limited by Section 1102 which provides: “1102. (1) The classes of property described in this Part and in Schedule B shall be deemed not to include property 9 9 (c) that was not acquired by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income, 2 2 The right of a taxpayer to deduct interest in computing income arises under Section 11(1) (c) which provides: “11. (1) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a), (b) and (h) of subsection (1) of section 12, the following amounts may be deducted in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year: (c) an amount paid in the year or payable in respect of the year (depending upon the method regularly followed by the taxpayer in computing his income), pursuant to a legal obligation to pay interest on (i) borrowed money used for the purpose of earning income from a business or property (other than borrowed money used to acquire property the income from which would be exempt), or (ii) an amount payable for property acquired for the purpose of gaining or producing income therefrom or for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business (other than property the income from which would be exempt), or a reasonable amount in respect thereof, whichever is the lesser;’’ The right of a taxpayer to deduct other expenses incurred in connection with property depends first on whether, on accepted principles for computing income from property, they would properly be taken into account in computing the profit from the property, but even if admissible, having regard to such principles, they are deductible only in so far as they fall within the exception of Section 12(1) (a) which provides that: “12. (1) In computing income, no deduction shall be made in respect of (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 property or a business of the taxpayer,” (Italics added in each of the foregoing.) ...

‘Substantial’ in this connection is not the same as ‘not unsubstantial’, i.e. just enough to avoid the de minimis principle. ...

It is sufficient to say that, in the provision respected forfeiture, the object in view is the connection between the vehicles and the spirits unlawfully manufactured or imported. ...