Search - consideration

Theory of the Respondent   [15]         The Respondent submits that the expenses here under consideration were completely personal in nature since the Appellant’s daughter was the sole beneficiary of the enterprise. ...

Hedzic claims that the Minister erred:                               (i)             by not taking into consideration the amounts held in their safety deposit box, after the sale of the two businesses in 2003 and not considering his salary and that of his spouse;                            (ii)             by adding to the non-current assets in 2008, assets the Hedzics did not own;                          (iii)             by erroneously adding personal expenditures. ...

It is clear that the inherent likelihood or probability of an event occurring is a necessary and relevant consideration in determining what the facts are on a balance of probabilities basis.   ...

Kellough’s passages of "only a brief review of void and voidable contracts” on pages 9:6,9:7 and 9:8, but he did not emphasize what may well be the more important discourse on the pertinent law, the considerations of conditions precedent at pages 9:4, 9:5 and 9:6. ...

Whether the moneys would attract tax if repaid during the year in which they were misappropriated; whether the taxpayer is entitled to claim a deduction in the year in which repayment is made or whether the employer would be taxable on the repayment are not matters for consideration and determination in the instant case. [10]   [46]          In the 2003 Tax Court decision in Nigro, above, on which the Minister relies, Judge Bonner held that where the appellant could not substantiate the true ownership of amounts deposited into his bank accounts, those amounts were deemed to constitute income of the appellant’s. ...

It is apparent from the passage in Auton that a legislative choice to accord a particular benefit under the legislation under consideration can potentially give rise to a valid claim that subsection 15(1) of the Charter has been infringed. ...

  [3]               Following the closing meeting of September 26, 1995, the accountants noticed that a mistake had been made in the sequence of the documents prepared by the notary Jean Boudreau: prior to the redemption by 9022-3512 Québec Inc. of shares held by the Appellant, other voting shares should have been issued so that the companies concerned would be connected persons within the meaning of the Act at the time of the redemption by 9022-3512 Québec Inc. of the 26,133 Class E shares held by the Appellant in consideration of $392,000 ...

In Meggeson v Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FCA 175 at paras 31-38, the Court specified that, though considerations which may lead to the exercise of this discretion are not limited, it has been done when, for example, an application does not provide appropriate procedural safeguards where declaratory relief is sought or when the facts underlying the application cannot be properly determined through affidavit evidence. ...

The equipment items of United States origin were not sold to the appellant but ‘‘rented’’ to it upon the terms of a written agreement by which the Corporation agreed to ‘‘rent’’ to the appellant necessary equipment for use in its Canadian operations, the rental to be determined in Pasadena, California, giving due consideration to reasonableness and total cost of each item of equipment. ...

Stanchfield, again relying on his untenable legal position, argued that the Court should take into consideration the fact that he is unemployed. ...