Search - connection

This was in connection with a legal action brought by Mr. Merchant against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. ... Merchant’s wife allegedly for doing some filing in connection with some board that Mr. ...

He referred in this connection to the decision of this Court in Business Art Inc. v. ... He argued that the cases do not require a direct connection between the loan and the income. ...

Where a person has severed his connection with the corporation of which he is a director, such action relieves the person of vicarious liability for the corporation’s default in remitting deductions at source. ... I am satisfied that reasonable grounds existed for the appellant’s belief that he had severed his connection with the Company as director and secretary-treasurer and concomitantly his responsibility for it when he placed his resignation in the hands of the Company’s president and it was accepted by him. ...

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) CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF CHICOUTIMI COURT OF QUEBEC (Civil Division) No.: 150-02-000846-922 LES EXCAVATIONS ROGER PICHE INC. ...

At issue is the deductibility in computing the Appellant’s income of expenses incurred in connection with two limited partnership units held by him, namely, one unit of Gerrard Associates Limited Partnership (“GA”) and one unit of Collegeway Associates Limited Partnership (“CA”). ... He asserted that there exists no requirement that expenses incurred in connection with such adventures be deferred and added to the cost of the property which is the subject of the adventure. ...

On this second issue, the parties proceeded principally on the basis of an Agreed Statement as to Facts which statement reads as follows: Agreed Statement as to Facts The Appellant and the Respondent do hereby agree with each other in connection with the truth and accuracy of the following facts and statements: 1. ... He refers further to what are known as the oppression provisions in the said B.C.A.S., namely: 234(1) A complainant may apply to a court for an order under this section. (2) If, upon an application under subsection (1), the court is satisfied that in respect of a corporation or any of its affiliates: (a) any act or omission of the corporation or any of its affiliates affects a result; (b) the business or affairs of the corporation or any of its affiliates are or have been carried on or conducted in a manner; or (c) the powers of the directors of the corporation or any of its affiliates are or have been exercised in a manner; that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to or that unfairly disregards the interests of any security holder, creditor, director or officer, the court may make an order to rectify the matters complained of. (3) In connection with an application under this section, the court may make any interim or final order it thinks fit including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing: (a) an order restraining the conduct complained of; (b) an order appointing a receiver or receiver-manager; (c) an order to regulate a corporation’s affairs by amending the articles or bylaws or creating or amending a unanimous shareholder agreement; (d) an order directing an issue or exchange of securities; (e) an order appointing directors in place of or in addition to all or any of the directors in office; (f) an order directing a corporation, subject to subsection (6), or any other person, to purchase securities of a security holder; (g) an order directing a corporation, subject to subsection (6), or any other person, to pay to a security holder any part of the moneys paid by him for securities; (h) an order varying or setting aside a transaction or contract to which a corporation is a party and compensating the corporation or any other party to the transaction or contract; (i) an order requiring a corporation, within a time specified by the court, to produce to the court or an interested person financial statements in the form required by section 149 or an accounting in such other form as the court may determine; (j) an order compensating an aggrieved person; (k) an order directing rectification of the registers or other records of a corporation under section 236; (l) an order liquidating and dissolving the corporation; (m) an order directing an investigation under Division XVII to be made; (n) an order requiring the trial of any issue. (4) If an order made under this section directs amendment of the articles or bylaws of a corporation: (a) the directors shall forthwith comply with subsection (4) of section 185; and (b) no other amendment to the articles or bylaws shall be made without the consent of the court, until a court otherwise orders. (5) A shareholder is not entitled to dissent under section 184 if an amendment to the articles is effected under this section. (6) A corporation shall not make a payment to a shareholder under clause (f) or (g) of subsection (3) of there are reasonable grounds for believing that: (a) the corporation is or would after that payment be unable to pay its liabilities as they become due; or (b) the realizable value of the corporation’s assets would thereby be less than the aggregate of its liabilities. (7) An applicant under this section may apply in the alternative for an order under section 207. ...

If the activities carried out by the appellant in respect of either of the two projects qualify as SR&ED, then it will be necessary to determine whether the expenditures incurred by the appellant in connection with one or both projects are deductible expenditures under section 37 of the Act, as well as qualified expenditures for the purposes of calculating the ITC under subsection 127(5) of the Act. ... The appellant did not conduct any systematic testing of the causes of the technical problems encountered at each stage of its research projects. (3) Scientific method [38] In determining whether this criterion has been met, it is necessary to consider whether the procedures adopted accord with established and objective principles of scientific method, characterized by trained and systematic observation, measurement and experiment, and the formulation, testing and modification of hypotheses (see para. 16 of Northwest Hydraulics Consultants Ltd., supra). [39] The analysis of the evidence reveals that the Appellant did not adopt a scientific method in carrying out its research activities in connection with its two projects. ...

In so reassessing the Appellant, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact: (a) in 1988, the Appellant and his spouse started an oriental giftware business in equal (5050) partnership under the name ‘Classic Arts & Collectibles’ (the ‘Business’): (b) in 1988, the Appellant leased a store at 734 Queen Street, East, Toronto to operate the Business; (c) the Appellant and his spouse reported gross income of $7,553.04, $3,724.73 and $1,328.34 and gross profit (excess of income over cost of goods sold) of $3,236.94, $1,510.97 and $371.23 in the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years respectively, arising out of the Business carried on by them; (d) the Appellant and his spouse reported expenses of $27,760.83, $21,709.88 and $18,948.88 in the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years, resulting in business losses of $24,523.89, $20,198.91 and $18,577.65 in the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years, of which the Appellant re- ported 81% or $19,921.98, 90% or $18,179.02 and 90% or $16,719.89 in the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years respectively; (e) in reassessing the Appellant for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years. the Minister reduced the net loss from the Business to the amounts of $17,366.00, $14,939.00 and nil respectively, and allocated 50% or $8,683.00, $7,469.50 and nil respectively to the Appellant and the remaining 50% of the loss from the Business to the Appellant’s spouse; (f) at all material times, the Appellant was in full time employment with Ontario Hydro; (g) the lease for the Queen Street store expired in November 1993 and the Appellant moved the inventory stock to the basement of his residence: (h) after the expiry of the lease for the store, the Appellant did not operate the Business with a reasonable expectation of profit; (i) the Appellant has failed to produce adequate receipts, invoices or other records to support the expenses incurred during the operation of the Business; (j) the Appellant claimed his share of the Business losses in other years as follows: YEAR % LOSSES 1988 50 $21,527.00 1989 50 $19,963.00 1990 50 $18,962.00 1991 50 $28,045.00 1995 50 $ 4,642.00 (k) expenses in excess of the amounts allowed by the Minister were not made or incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property; (1) the disallowed expenses were personal or living expenses of the Appellant: (m) the business expenses reported by the Appellant and his spouse for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years, included automobile expenses including capital cost allowance in the amounts of $6,692.71, $7,274.81 and $3,270.11, respectively; (n) for the 1992 and 1993 taxation years, the Minister allowed 20% of the automobile expenses claimed including capital cost allowance in the amounts of $1,207.00 and $1,406.00 respectively; (o) the balance of disallowed automobile expenses in the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years represents the Appellant’s personal use portion; (p) the Appellant did not maintain a proper log book in connection with the business use of the automobile. ... (h) the Appellant has failed to produce adequate receipts, invoices or other records to support the expenses incurred during the operation of the Business; (1) the Appellant claimed her share of the Business losses in other years as follows: YEAR % LOSSES 1988 50 $21,527.00 1989 50 $19,963.00 1990 50 $18.962.00 1991 22 $ 7,681.00 1995 0 $ 0: (j) expenses in excess of the amounts allowed by the Minister were not made or incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property; (k) the disallowed expenses were personal or living expenses of the Appellant; (1) the business expenses reported by the Appellant and her spouse for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years, included automobile expenses including capital cost allowance in the amounts of $6,692.71, $7,274.81 and $3,270.11, respectively; (m) for the 1992 and 1993 taxation years, the Minister allowed 20% of the automobile expenses claimed including capital cost allowance in the amounts of $1,207.00 and $1,406.00 respectively; (n) the balance of disallowed automobile expenses in the 1992, 1993 and 994 taxation years represents the Appellant’s personal use portion; (o) the Appellant did not maintain a proper log book in connection with the business use of the automobile. ...

The operative provisions of that indemnity reads as follows: Now Therefore be it Resolved That: (L504/R2742/T2/BT2) test_marked_paragraph_end (2074) 0.833 0489_6265_6377 I 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. ... R.,2 [2] The phrase “in respect of” is probably the widest of any expression intended to convey some connection between two related subject matters. ...

The above passage deals with only negligence or the failure to exercise reasonable care in connection with opening a statute-barred year. ... Once she proved that the Appellant had been untruthful with respect to certain expenses, and that other substantial amounts had no supporting receipts, the onus was on the Appellant to prove that the various credit card vouchers had a connection with the Appellant’s business. ...