Search - connection

In this connection counsel for the respondent referred to paragraph 16 of Interpretation Bulletin IT-419R, which reads as follows: 16. ... In this connection we may mention the judgment rendered by the Federal Court of Appeal in Robson Leather Co. ...

Tab 46: Copy of a declaration of general contractor’s lien made on September 10, 1991, by Jean-Eudes Lalancette for and on behalf of 133139 Canada Ltée at the registration division for the district of Chicoutimi in connection with a construction contract with Pierre Tremblay et al. ... CHICOUTIMI, April 22, 1993 (s) CAIN, LAMARRE, WELLS_________________________ CAIN, LAMARRE, WELLS Attorneys for the plaintiff-applicant Tab 55: Copy of the arrest warrant issued on April 23, 1993, by a judge of the Court of Quebec for the district of Chicoutimi against Jean-Eudes Lalancette in connection with the lawsuit by Excavations Roger Piché Inc. against 133139 Canada Ltée (file no. 150-02-000846-922) C A N A D A PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF CHICOUTIMI COURT OF QUEBEC (Civil Division)___________________ No.: 150-02-000846-922 LES EXCAVATIONS ROGER PICHÉ INC., Plaintiff-Applicant,-VS- 133139 CANADA LTÉE, Defendant-Respondent. * ARREST WARRANT AND ORDER OF IMPRISONMENT * TO THE SHERIFF, ONE OF THE SHERIFF’S OFFICERS OR ANY BAILIFF IN THE DISTRICT OF CHICOUTIMI CONSIDERING the judgment appended hereto on the plaintiff’s motion for an arrest warrant pursuant to articles 284 and 545 of the Code of Civil Procedure; NOW THEREFORE, this is to order you, in the name of Her Majesty, to arrest the president of the defendant-respondent, JEAN-EUDES LALANCETTE, 78 Tadoussac Boulevard, Chicoutimi, between 7:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. on April 27, 1993, or any other following juridical day, at any place where the said defendant is present and to immediately bring him before the Court of Quebec or its authorized clerks at the courthouse in Chicoutimi and to detain him until he is released on giving good and sufficient security for his remaining at the disposal of the Court, or until he undergoes the examination for which he was summoned. ...

In consideration of their providing the Guarantees, the Corporation is hereby authorized to provide the following assurances to the Guarantors: (a) The Corporation shall agree to pay all of the costs of the Guarantors in connection with their entering into the Guarantees; (b) The Corporation shall agree to indemnify and save the Guarantors harmless from any claim, liability or loss arising in respect of the Guarantees, from time to time, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any claims, liabilities or losses arising as a result of the Guarantors having to honour their obligations under the Guarantee; and (c) in the event that any of the Guarantors are required to pay any amount in respect of the Guarantees, then to the extent of such payment, the Corporation acknowledges and agrees that the Guarantors will be entitled to an assignment of the Loan as if the Guarantors had been original parties thereto, and for the purposes of this provision, any amounts owing by the Corporation to the Guarantors, and unpaid, including amounts owing by the Corporation to the Guarantors under paragraph (a) or (b) above, shall be considered payments made by the Guarantors. [5] The Appellant’s contention is that by operation of this indemnity provision CLGI became indebted to him for the amount which he was required to pay to the bank under his guarantee, and also for all the incidental costs arising out of the sale of the family home and the purchase of a replacement. [6] The sale price of the Appellant’s house was $633,000.00. ... The Queen, [2] The phrase "in respect of" is probably the widest of any expression intended to convey some connection between two related subject matters. ...

All amounts of interest paid by FCICL to the Toronto-Dominion Bank with respect to money borrowed in connection with the Appellant’s issue of shares to the public. ... All loan arrangement fees paid by FCICL to the Toronto-Dominion Bank with respect to money borrowed in connection with the Appellant’s issue of shares to the public. 3. ...

(iii) income from employment with a prescribed international organization,... to the extent that it is included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year; 122.3(1) Where an individual is resident in Canada in a taxation year and, throughout any period of more than 6 consecutive months that commenced before the end of the year and included any part of the year (in this subsection referred to as the “qualifying period”) (a) was employed by a person who was a specified employer, other than for the performance of services under a prescribed international development assistance program of the Government of Canada, and (b) performed all or substantially all the duties of the individual’s employment outside Canada (i) in connection with a contract under which the specified employer carried on business outside Canada with respect to... there may be deducted, from the amount that would, but for this section, be the individual’s tax payable under this Part for the year, an amount equal to that proportion of the tax otherwise payable under this Part for the year by the individual that... ... Notwithstanding the close connection between James Creagh and his associates on one hand and the UN personnel on the other hand, Lamarre Proulx J. found that Mr. ...

Cockburn, Foster & Co. in which the Appellant released SunLife from any further claims in connection with the motor vehicle accident. ... The parties hereto agree that any monies recovered as a result of a Judgment, settlement or cost order in favour of the Claimant shall be disbursed as follows and in the following priority: (a) First, the Insurer shall be entitled to recover both its solicitor and client costs as well as its judicial and extrajudicial costs paid to its own solicitors for fees and expenses in connection with the said action or settlement; (b) Secondly, the Insurer shall be entitled to reimbursement of all no-fault benefits paid to the Claimant prior to such Judgment, Order or settlement; (c) Thirdly, in the event that any monies are collected in excess of (a) and (b), the Insurer is entitled to receive a credit of such monies toward any no-fault benefits which may become payable to the Claimant after the date of such Judgment, Order or settlement; (d) Fourthly, in the event that there are any monies collected in excess of that mentioned in (a) and (b), such monies shall be paid over to the Claimant. [19] I note that the opening words of paragraph 3 refer to “... any monies recovered as a result of a Judgment... in favour of the Claimant... ”. ...

Sawyer had done virtually nothing in connection with his mandate. The description by Jean-Paul Bergeron of the work that Mr. ... His testimony in this connection is worth quoting: [TRANSLATION] Q.         ...

Even though I repurchased the vehicle, there was no connection . . . for me, it was to get back as much of my money as possible that I... ... There was still a connection to the vehicle. So I       think I acted reasonably and honestly in the situation. ...

In this connection, it is to be noted that the Respondent had filed the Reply to the Notice of Appeal on the basis that the Appellant was appealing the 1997 assessment. ... In connection with this subparagraph, he also indicated that he did not know if SEL was incorporated under the laws of the province of Ontario on March 23, 1993, nor did he know who were the shareholders of SEL in the 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years. [7]            The Appellant denied subparagraph 6(d) of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal. [8]            With respect to subparagraph 6(f) of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant declared that he disposed of the shares of the capital stock of SEIL in 1996 but not in 1997 and that he was given a cheque in the amount of $5,000 by Mr. ...

That benefit may be reduced if the appellant can show on clear evidence, first, that the employer required him to use the automobile in connection with or in the course of his employment and, second, that he drove the vehicle less than 12,000 km per year or less than 1,000 km per month for personal use. ... Thus the appellant does not meet the first condition established by subsection 6(2) to be able to change the calculation of the taxable benefit under paragraph 6(1)(e) of the Act, that is to say, that all or substantially all the distance travelled by the automobile was not travelled in connection with or in the course of his employment ...