Search - consideration

  [15]            Second, she contends that no consideration was given to the fact that she filed bona fide tax returns and claimed child care benefits for the years 2000 to 2006 in accordance with Revenue Canada’s finding made in 2000 that she was a factual resident of Canada (Memorandum, p. 9, para. 2) ...   [16]            Third, she alleges that no consideration was given to the retroactive nature of the assessments, which required the repayment of benefits already paid out for the period February 2004 to 2006 (Memorandum, page 9, para. 3) ...

The purposes and objects as set out in the letters patent are as follows: (a) TO acquire, own, lease, prospect for, open, explore, develop, work, improve, maintain and manage mines and mineral lands and deposits, and to dig for, raise, crush, wash, smelt, assay, analyze, reduce, amalgamate, refine, pipe, convey and otherwise treat ores, metals and minerals, whether belonging to the Company or not, and to render the same merchantable and to sell or otherwise dispose of the same or any part thereof or interest therein; and (b) TO take, acquire and hold as consideration for ores, metals or minerals sold or otherwise disposed of or for goods supplied or for work done by contract or otherwise, shares, debentures or other securities of or in any other company having objects similar, in whole or in part, to those of the Company hereby incorporated and to sell and otherwise dispose of the same. ... It is to be noted that the statute presently under consideration also contains no definition of ‘‘principal business’’ although “business” is defined in Section 139(1) (e) in a manner not here relevant. ...

He argued that the consideration for the sale of a rebuilt engine is the catalogue price plus the delivery of a rebuildable engine of the same model, and that the deposit is a refundable deposit which at the time of its receipt is not the absolute property of the respondent. ... I do not think that Section 85B requires any consideration for the determination of this appeal. ...

I do, however, have some difficulty accepting his evidence that he simply gave all his receipts to his accountant, [2] and that he signed the income tax returns that she prepared for him without giving any consideration to their contents. ... He or she would also consider whether the person claiming to be in business has gone about it in an orderly, businesslike way and in the way that a business person would normally be expected to do. 6     This leads to a further consideration-- that of reasonableness. ...

Subsection 160(1) of the Act reads: (1) Where a person has, on or after the 1st day of May, 1951, transferred property, either directly or indirectly, by means of a trust or by any other means whatever, to (a) his spouse or a person who has since become his spouse, the following rules apply: (d) the transferee and transferor are jointly and severally liable to pay a part of the transferor's tax under this Part for each taxation year equal to the amount by which the tax for the year is greater than it would have been if it were not for the operation of sections 74 to 75.1, in respect of any income from, or gain from the disposition of, the property so transferred or property substituted therefor, and (e) the transferee and transferor are jointly and severally liable to pay under this Act an amount equal to the lesser of (i) the amount, if any, by which the fair market value of the property at the time it was transferred exceeds the fair market value at that time of the consideration given for the property, and (ii) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is an amount that the transferor is liable to pay under this Act in or in respect of the taxation year in which the property was transferred or of any preceding taxation year, but nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to limit the liability of the transferor under any other provision of this Act. ... The consideration paid by Mrs. Winsor for the property was as stated in the Indenture of Conveyance: "One Dollar... and of natural love and affection the Vendor bears to the Purchaser...”. ...

The scope of the subsection is not obscure for one does not speak of benefitting a person in the sense of the subsection by making a business contract with him for adequate consideration. ... But this right is subject, according to the generally accepted view, to the important qualification that a shareholder has, generally speaking, and subject to certain considerations which are discussed in the chapter on Dividends, no right to say when those profits shall be distributed, or, in other words, he has no right to demand the declaration of a dividend, that being a matter for the discretion of the directors, with which the Courts will not interfere unless in case of fraud or bad faith. ...

While those comments were made in the context of his general consideration of how severe the sentence should be, which included the option of imprisonment for the individuals, I recite them because they fairly summarize, in his own words, the position Judge Fairbanks expressed on conviction. ... Now having found that the assessment of the determination of fair market value is not satisfactory to me, the only evidence was the evidence of Mr Strung* [1] and he was evasive and I use that word not that strongly but he couldn’t or didn’t put a figure on what would be the assessment of fair market value assuming that he took into consideration the sale of this property. ...

Appellant’s position as owner and operator of a commercial building, and not as a banker, was a significant consideration as the expenditures made for the generators were a highly important step in the performance of its contractual obligations to its tenants and an important part of its business as a building operator. ... The Court reached this conclusion on a consideration of the Act as a whole and, while it recognized that on the plain meaning of the words ‘producer and manufacturer’ the appellant would qualify, the fact that the use of the generators was so limited and formed only an incidental part of the appellant’s operation indicated that it could not have been the parliamentary intention to allow an exemption in these circumstances. ...

He ought to have given consideration to the fact that the expropriation award was made by a specialized tribunal pursuant to lengthy adversarial proceedings designed precisely to establish the fair market value of a portion of that very land. ... For the purpose of clarity, since this matter will be returned to the Tax Court judge, on the first ground of appeal, namely for a consideration of the expropriation award, we will also return the matter to him on the second ground of appeal, so as to make sure that the off-site costs expenses for the unserviced land were properly considered by him as he analysed the figures given to him by both expert witnesses with respect to the value of the residential and commercial components of the land. ...

While I agree that the remedy sought by the applicant should not be granted without taking into consideration the factors mentioned in Rule 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules, it is my opinion that the byzantine complexity of the respondents’ affairs constitutes a more than substantial impediment in the way of ordinary modes of recovery and, having regard to that fact, the large amount owing and the likelihood that a receiver will be able to realize upon very considerable assets that would otherwise remain sheltered, I have concluded that it is entirely appropriate (which is to say, just and convenient) that a receiver be appointed in accordance with the applicant’s request. ... It is therefore my conclusion that the order appointing a receiver should be granted subject to conditions appropriate to the considerations just mentioned. ...