Search - consideration

The fact is that the Appellant never owned or operated any kind of business at all during the taxation period under consideration. ... At no time during the period under consideration did he own or operate a business. ... Such conduct in refusing to inform himself is not only evidence of wilful blindness, but amounts to gross negligence in my opinion. [33]         Even setting aside any consideration of wilful blindness, I am of the view that the Appellant has demonstrated conduct amounting to gross negligence. ...

Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2006 SCC 4, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 140, at para. 51) Although Bastarache J. was referring to an administrative tribunal, the same rule of jurisdiction, by necessary implication, would apply to statutory courts. [8] [22]         Apart from being reflective of the Court’s implied authority to control its own process, the repetition of the permissive aspect of Rule 58 reinforces the point that there may well be other considerations at play that factor into the Court’s decision whether or not to grant an order. ... Rather, the possibility of that answer should be factored into the Court’s consideration of whether or not to exercise its discretion to grant an order under Rule 58. In my view, such an approach respects the broad discretionary language of subsection 58(2) and is consistent with the mandate under subsection 4(1) of the Rules and the general principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak. [26]         With these considerations in mind, I will now address the application made by the Appellant. ...

.;   (c)        the appellant’s fiscal years began on November 1 of a given calendar year and ended on October 31 of the following calendar year;   (d)       the appellant operated a licensed restaurant;   (e)              the appellant filed its GST net tax returns quarterly during the 4 periods in question;   (f)        all the supplies made by the appellant in the operation of the restaurant, a commercial activity, during the period starting May 1, 2004, and ending October 31, 2007 (hereinafter the “audit period”) were taxable supplies for which a tax, the GST, of 7% or 6% (depending on whether consideration for the supply was paid or invoiced before July 1, 2006 [7%] or after June 30, 2006 [6%]) on the value of the consideration for the supply, was payable by the appellant’s buyers, to be collected by the appellant;   (g)        since the appellant’s accounting books and records, given to the Minister when required at the time of the audit, were incomplete and unclear, for inter alia, the fiscal years ending October 31, 2005, and October 31, 2007, and the last six (6) months of the fiscal year ending October 31,  2004, the Minister reconstructed the total amount of the supplies made by the appellant using an indirect audit method for the audit period;   (h)        for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2006, the Minister determined that, for each combined litre of beer and wine the appellant supplied by sale, the appellant made taxable supplies for the restaurant (food and alcohol) of $78.8604;   (i)         the amount, or ratio, mentioned in the preceding subparagraph for said fiscal year was established based on all the available accounting data submitted by the appellant to the Minister, which was very detailed and  which, overall, was deemed reliable for purposes of establishing said ratio, namely the “SALES DETAILS BY MENU/CATEGORY/ITEM”;   (j)         more specifically, the Minister noted, for said fiscal year ending October 31, 2006, all the litres of beer and wine sold and accounted for by the appellant, which totalled 6,898 litres (within that amount, the Minister took into account the happy hour component and other similar adjustments following submissions made by the appellant prior to the assessment), as well as the amount of the consideration for all the supplies made for the restaurant (food and alcohol) which was accounted for by the appellant, which totalled $543,983.00, and separated them from each other to obtain the aforementioned ratio of $78.8604/litre of beer and wine sold;   (k)        said accounting data, namely “SALES DETAILS BY MENU/CATEGORY/ITEM” or under another similar form, was not submitted to the Minister when required to do so for the other periods contained within the audit period, namely the last six (6) months of the fiscal year ending October 31, 2004 (from May 1, 2004, to October 31, 2004) and the fiscal years ending October 31, 2005, and October 31, 2007;   (l)         in order to reconstruct the total amount of supplies made by the appellant for the last six (6) months of the fiscal year ending October 31, 2004 (from May 1, 2004, to October 31, 2004) and the fiscal years ending  October 31, 2005, and October 31, 2007, contained in the audit period, the Minister was forced to use the ratio he calculated for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2006;   (m)       based on the purchase invoices submitted by the appellant or the data provided by the brewers and the SAQ, the Minister determined the quantities, converted in litres, of wine and beer acquired by the appellant and supplied by the appellant by sale for each of the three fiscal years contained in the audit period as well as the entire fiscal year ending October 31, 2004, even though only the last six (6) months of said fiscal year are part of the audit period, and made some adjustments to take into account losses incurred by the appellant (the quantities used in the kitchen or consumed by staff, complimentary beverages offered to clients and losses of any nature, established at 8% for all said products, with the exception of beer, for which losses were established between 4.3% and 19.9%) and, where applicable, the change in inventory at the beginning and at the end of the fiscal year, set the total at 10,843,015 litres for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2004, at 10,350,845 litres for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2005, at 9,673,711 litres for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2006, and at 10,120,289 litres for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2007;   (n)        the Minister multiplied the respective quantities of wine and beer acquired by the appellant at the preceding subparagraph, which the appellant supplied, by the aforementioned ratio at subparagraph (j) above for each of the four (4) fiscal years mentioned earlier;   (o)        the total amount of the taxable supplies made by the appellant reconstructed by the Minister for the audit period is $3,050,784.94, that is, $673,550.21 for the last six (6) months of the fiscal year ending October 31, 2004 ($10,843,015 litres x $78.8604 x 79% [percentage of sales reported for this period throughout the fiscal year]), $816,271.84 for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2005 (10,350,845 litres x $78.8604), $762,872.78 for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2006 (9,673,711 litres x $78.8604) and $798,090.10 for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2007 (10,120,289 litres x $78.8604);   (p)        the appellant indicated, for the audit period, in its accounting books and records or, based on the GST amount reported for that same audit period, having made taxable supplies in the amount of $2,256,258.43;   (q)        the appellant did not, for the audit period, indicate in its accounting books and records supplies it made in the amount of $794,526.51        ($3,050,784.94  - $2,256,258.43);   (r)        the GST amount that the appellant collected or was required to collect during the audit period is $203,033.20, that is, 7% of $1,998,610.26 (for supplies made before July 1, 2006) plus 6% of $1,052,174.68 (for supplies made after June 30, 2006);   (s)        the appellant filed its net tax returns with the Minister and reported, for the audit period, an overall amount of $138,560.45 of GST collected or collectable in computing its net tax;   (t)        the appellant did not, therefore, report, in computing its net tax, during the audit period, an amount of $64,472.75 ($203,033.20 - $138,560.45) in GST collected or collectable;   (u)        the appellant therefore owes the Minister the amount of the adjustments made to its reported net tax for the 4 periods in question, plus interest and penalties;   [7]              At the opening of the hearing, counsel for the respondent filed on consent with counsel for the appellant, an Amended Reply to the Notice of Appeal by which the Minister recognizes that the adjustments in the calculation of the reported net tax that were assessed, were overestimated and subject to a concession by the respondent. ... (bb)      the Minister noted, for said fiscal year ending October 31, 2006, all the litres of beer and wine sold and accounted for by the appellant, which totalled 7,334 litres (and not 6,898 litres as mentioned at subparagraph 27(j) above) (within that amount, the Minister took into account the happy hour component at about 1,000 litres offered free of charge and other similar adjustments following submissions made by the appellant prior to the assessment), as well as the amount of the consideration for all the supplies made for the restaurant (food and alcohol) which was accounted for by the appellant, which totalled $543,983.00, and separated them from each other to obtain the aforementioned ratio of $74.17/litre of beer and wine sold;   (cc)      said ratio of $74.17/litre for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2006, was rounded off to $74.00/litre;   (dd)     to account in some way for the inflation factor, the Minister determined the ratio for the last six (6) months of the fiscal year ending October 31, 2004 (from May 1, 2004, to October 31, 2004) at $72.00/litre; for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2005, at $73.00/litre and for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2007, at $75.00/litre (and not at $78.8604 for these three periods as mentioned at subparagraph 27(l) above);   (ee)      the Minister multiplied the respective quantities of wine and beer acquired by the appellant at paragraph 27(m) above, which the appellant supplied, by the aforementioned ratios at the two subparagraphs above for each of the four (4) fiscal years, or part of the years, mentioned earlier;   (ff)       the total amount of the taxable supplies made by the appellant reconstructed by the Minister for the audit period is $2,845,443.15  (and not               $3,050,784.94 as mentioned at subparagraph 27(j) above), that is,             $614,955.18 for the last six (6) months of the fiscal year ending October 31, 2004, $755,611.69 for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2005, $715,854.61 for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2006, and $759,021.68 for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2007;   (gg)      the appellant indicated, for the audit period, in its accounting books and records or, based on the GST amount reported for that same audit period, having made taxable supplies in the amount of $2,097,298.15 (and not $2,256,258.43 as mentioned at subparagraph 27(p) above).   ...

There is no evidence that any shareholder received more than nominal consideration for agreeing not to compete and the Crown did not allege any amount.   ... My primary concern was to deal with the appeal hearing reasonably and "as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and consideration of fairness" permitted ... Also, consideration and dividends were paid. I would therefore allow two‑thirds of the expenses claimed, that is, $3,977.   ...

These factors should then be analyzed to determine what weight they should be given in identifying the location of the property, in light of three considerations: (1) the purpose of the exemption under the Indian Act; (2) the type of property in question; and (3) the nature of the taxation of that property. ... The consideration of connecting factors in Williams must take account of the purpose of the exempting provision, the nature of the property sought to be taxed and the nature of taxation. ... Gasoline is obtained from off the reserve [25]      This would tend to be a commercial mainstream consideration which would weaken the connection of the rebates to the reserve.      8. ...

This instrument stated that in consideration for the assignment and transfer, Wellgate "hereby issues a convertible promissory note to the Assignors in the principal amount of U.S. $4,800,000". [10]            On October 26, 1998, BNY, as a secured creditor, petitioned the Quebec Superior Court (Bankruptcy and Insolvency Division) in the matter of Cedar Canada's proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. ... That hearing took place before me in Montreal on April 18, 2000. [17]            I have given careful consideration to the arguments and submissions of the parties and am satisfied that the proper course to follow in both applications is to stay these matters pending the final disposition of an ongoing action in the Quebec Superior Court (court file no. 500-05-052021-993) commenced September 23, 1999. ... Miida Electronics Inc., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752, the Court stated at p. 766: The general extent of the jurisdiction of the Federal Court has been the subject of much judicial consideration in recent years. ...

and   (C)       Does the differential treatment discriminate, by imposing a burden upon or withholding a benefit from the claimant in a manner which reflects the stereotypical application of presumed group or personal characteristics, or which otherwise has the effect of perpetuating or promoting the view that the individual is less capable or worthy of recognition or value as a human being or as a member of Canadian society, equally deserving of concern, respect, and consideration? ... The ages at which the plaintiffs respectively joined the public service and the fact that those ages did not allow the plaintiffs a full 35 years of contribution before reaching the age of 71 are truly purely temporal considerations; they do not constitute enumerated or analogous grounds and are not purely personal characteristics of the plaintiffs. ... I would add that my consideration has necessarily been limited to the specific regulatory provisions identified by the plaintiffs in their Notice of Constitutional Question and quoted above. ...

  …   The information presented in your conversation has been taken carefully into consideration. ... I can assure you that careful consideration has been given to your situation. ... They would prepare a decision report for the director or another delegated official for his or her consideration, including a recommendation on whether or not granting relief is justified. ...

The Notices of Reassessment did not take into consideration the “Adjustments to Income Statement” submitted by the applicant requesting loss carry-back ... By Order dated February 7, 2007, Madam Justice Mactavish set aside the July 6, 2006 decision of the Minister without costs, and referred the applicant’s request for a waiver of penalties and interest charges relating to the 1988-1990 tax years back to the Minister for a new second level review by a person, or persons, not previously involved in the matter, for consideration of the issues in accordance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, specifically that all relevant documents and facts be reviewed by the decision maker.   ...   [46]            Another equitable consideration is the confusion surrounding the communications the applicant received from the CRA.  ...

The answer to this issue requires a consideration of section 12 of the Customs Act; the nature of the transaction engaged in by Mr. Abdelseed respecting the Bus; the relative rights to the Bus; and, the legal implications that flow from these considerations.    ... Abdelseed thought he was acting in good faith was an irrelevant consideration and Mr. ...