Search - consideration

  [17]     In addition to relevancy, the court must give some consideration to whether some aspect of the case mandates the increased expense and time required to assemble documents pursuant to the full disclosure rule. ...   [25]     The Respondent argued that the Appellant has alternate viable avenues to obtain the requested information and documents or to deal with his other concerns and that these factors should be a consideration in deciding if full disclosure under Rule 82 is appropriate. ... Although there is no limitation on the timing of a Rule 82 application, one of the considerations to be taken into account is the stage of the proceedings, particularly when none of the preliminary steps have been initiated. ...

The capital gain from this unreported sale of shares must therefore be added to the appellant’s income for the 2004 taxation year, while taking into consideration the cost of acquisition, which was $47,400. ... The consideration paid, namely $30,000 for the first 1,000 shares purchased and $25,000 for the second 1,000, supposedly corresponds to the fees that the company owed him for services rendered ... The consideration, $25,000, is payable by the appellant’s delivery of professional services to the company, namely, the services required to preserve and defend the trademark application. ...

Both requirements raise the same issue: Did the Appellants receive a per diem because they had a statutory right to be paid or was the per diem simply consideration owed pursuant to the terms of a contract? ... The resulting payment is not given as consideration for any good or service. ... All they have is a contractual right to be paid and that payment is made as consideration for services rendered.   ...

Ct.) at page 5216 as follows:   It is not a question of the Minister or this Court substituting its judgment for what is a reasonable amount to pay, but rather a case of the Minister or the Court coming to the conclusion that no reasonable business man would have contracted to pay such an amount having only the business consideration of the appellant in mind.   (emphasis added)   [15]          As noted by Justice Cattanach in Gabco Limited, if the court reaches a “conclusion that no reasonable business man would have contracted to pay such an amount having only the business consideration of the appellant in mind” then the provisions of section 67 of the Act would apply. ... If an expense is unreasonable in relation to the source of income then “no reasonable business man would have contracted to pay such an amount having only the business consideration of the appellant in mind” ...

  [7]               In other words, when the discretionary power is exercised responsibly and judiciously, all the relevant facts were taken into consideration and the conclusion is reasonable, the Tax Court of Canada cannot amend the decision, even if the Court does not necessarily agree with it ... For example, it is common for a person to accept a lower salary to keep a job, to gain experience, in consideration of other benefits, for a better future, better quality of life, and so on ... Conversely, if the taxpayer deliberately prevents the normal review of the case, the sanction could be more severe, since the Minister’s finding could be reasonable given the facts available and taken into consideration. ...

The Partners agree to transfer to the Partnership to following:   (a)     Maureen shall transfer Lot 1, Plan 10658, to the Partnership, free and clear of any financial encumbrances;   (b)    Stephen shall transfer Lot 3, Plan 9678 to the Partnership, free and clear of any financial encumbrances;   (c)     Pocket Bay shall transfer Lot 1, Plan 6394 to the Partnership, free and clear of any financial encumbrances;   (d)    Jones Development shall cause Nova Pacific Business Park Ltd. to transfer Lot 2, Plan 10658 to the Partnership, in consideration of the sum of $1.00, and the Partnership shall assume all liability for the mortgages registered against the said lot in favour of Scotia Mortgage Corporation and Lawrence Mayles, provided such liability shall not exceed $289,000.00;   (e)     Jones Development shall assign to the Partnership all services performed by it to the date hereof with respect to the Project, including the rezoning of the Development Property.   The Partners shall not be entitled to any consideration for the transfer of the aforedescribed lands and services, save and except for the Contributory Interests, as hereinafter defined.   ... First, failing a finding of ambiguity in the document under consideration, it is not open to the Court to consider extrinsic evidence. ...

What is difficult to understand in this case is the terms on which the money was paid to the recipient in China, if it was paid to him, and the consideration given for it ... Therefore, he was insistent that there be no documentation recording the arrangement between him and EJP and that any consideration to be paid by EJP must be in the form of cash ... I think it was for some other consideration.   [40]     I do not have to get into that area, however, because the reasons for EJP paying cash to Mr.  ...

p)         Any consideration provided to the Appellant for the Payment Agreement was past consideration.   ... Further, the Appellant testified that as part of the consideration for the transfer of the Placid shares to Mr.  ...

While there was no evidence of why the new caller chose to work under contract with the charity instead of as an employee, there are many considerations relevant to Canadian workers faced with such a choice including whether she has other contract work clients, the different basis of deducting work-related expenses for tax purposes, and paying EI and CPP balanced against the likelihood of collecting meaningful amounts in their own personal circumstances ... Canada, 2005 D.T.C. 5523, the Supreme Court of Canada was considering the general anti-avoidance rule in the Income Tax Act, which expressly requires a consideration of purpose. ... My comments above are also consistent with such a purposive consideration of paragraph 5(3)(b). ...

The tests mentioned in cases in other courts are of course helpful, but other factors should also be emphasized, including the timeliness of the motion to amend or withdraw, the extent to which the proposed amendments would delay the expeditious trial of the matter, the extent to which a position taken originally by one party has led another party to follow a course of action in the litigation which it would be difficult or impossible to alter and whether the amendments sought will facilitate the court's consideration of the true substance of the dispute on its merits. ... Ultimately it boils down to a consideration of simple fairness, common sense and the interest that the courts have that justice be done ... Here, intent is not a pertinent consideration. As was said in Klotz v. ...