Search - connection

  [10]            Justice Boyle found as a fact that the break fee was paid pursuant to an agreement negotiated by Morguard in connection with its potential acquisition of Acanthus, that Morguard pursued the acquisition in accordance with its established business strategy and in the ordinary course of its normal business operations, and that the receipt of the break fee was a normal and expected incident of its business activities. ...

A.D)) for a similar conclusion reached in a different context. [10]            Turning to the second appeal (A-268-15), the Crown claims that although the Tax Court judge purported to assess whether Superior Plus’ partial disclosure of privileged information gave rise to unfairness and inconsistency, he in effect determined that there had been no waiver because the additional information sought by the Crown was neither “vital or necessary” to her case. [11]            The underlying issue essentially turns on the link or connection between the legal opinion on which Superior Plus waived the solicitor-client privilege, and the other legal opinions which it received from its legal Counsel and with respect to which the privilege has not been waived. ...

In that connection it is to be noted that subsection 12(3) lays down a rule which, if it applies at all, applies “In computing” the appellant’s income for its 1960 taxation year and, in particular, it applies in the computation of the gross profit accruing to the appellant from a sale of land in that year. ...

One thinks, for example, of the commission paid to a real estate agent or of the fees paid to a notary in connection with the sale of a house. ...

RAPISTAN CANADA accepts the foregoing gift and acknowledges, covenants and agrees as follows: (a) That by reason of accepting the foregoing gift it will obtain confidential information and data disclosed to it by RAPISTAN and it will not at any time except so far as may be necessary in connection with its own rights of manufacture and sale, disclose to third persons any of the information, knowledge or data imparted or furnished to it by RAPISTAN and it will use every effort to prevent disclosures at any time of the said information, data or knowledge by its employees or others possessing or having access thereto; (b) That it will not by reason of its exercise of the rights hereby given to it obtain or claim to obtain any property rights whatsoever or wheresoever in respect to any trade name, trade mark, letters patent or applications for any such, now owned or controlled by RAPISTAN beyond the rights conferred upon it by this Deed of Gift; (c) That should trade marks covered hereby be registered by RAPISTAN under the laws of any country other than Canada, such registration and trade marks shall be the sole property of RAPISTAN, and RAPISTAN CANADA will not contest at any time in any manner, the validity thereof; (d) That should Rapistan apply for or have issued letters patent by any country other than Canada relating to any product covered by this Agreement, RAPISTAN CANADA will not contest at any time, in the manner, the validity thereof; (e) That the rights, franchises and licences acquired by it hereunder will not be transferred by it in any way without the prior consent of RAPISTAN; (f) That upon the termination of the period hereinbefore fixed it will return to RAPISTAN all blueprints, written data and information. ...

The validity or invalidity of the assessments turned on the legal characterization of the contractual relationship between bank and appellant in connection with the new vehicle purchases: if it were a lender-borrower relationship, the debts stemmed from loans and were covered by subsection 181.2(3) of the Act; if instead it were a seller-purchaser relationship, on the basis that ownership"which the manufacturers reserved under their instalment sales contracts with the appellant"was transferred to the bank, then the debts consisted of purchase price balances and were not covered. 2.      ...

Oslers continues to act on the Applicant"s behalf on other matters; (b) the learned judge was appointed to the Federal Court Trial Division on January 22, 1999; (c) on April 27, 1993, while a partner at Oslers, the learned judge provided advice and was otherwise actively involved in this matter; (d) the learned judge"s connection with Oslers and active involvement on the file was not disclosed at the hearing and the parties were not aware of these facts until after the hearing; (e) by failing to recuse himself from hearing the Application or, in the alternative, by failing to advise counsel his prior involvement on the file and invite submissions as to whether he should hear the case, the learned judge acted contrary to the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness. ...

It is argued that the definition of "government funding" contained in section 2 of the Public Service Body Rebate (GST) Regulations was ignored. 3 That definition includes money paid by the government "as consideration for making property or services available.... where supplies of the property or services.... are exempt supplies". [6]      The appellants referred us to amendments made by Parliament in 1997 in connection with the definitions of both "public college" and "selected public service body" which they argue altered the meaning of those words. ...

(iii) the value of any of the following goods and services, determined in the manner prescribed, that are supplied, directly or indirectly, by the purchaser of the goods free of charge or at a reduced cost for use in connection with the production and sale for export of the imported goods, apportioned to the imported goods in a reasonable manner and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles: (A) materials, components, parts and other goods incorporated in the imported goods,... ...

The first is that the objector could not use art. 597 C.C.P. in the circumstances to object to the sale of the property: in connection with the sale, only art. 604 C.C.P. was available to it. [3]         Its second argument, which in my opinion has more weight, is that the deemed trust in s. 227 (4.1) of the Income Tax Act ("the Act") means that the seizure made must be affirmed so there can be a sale and the proceeds paid in priority up to the amount of the money owed by the judgment debtor. ...