Search - consideration

The significance of this will be apparent in the consideration of whether the Separation Agreement has a commencement day.   ... As such, neither of them requires consideration.   Sub-paragraph (b)(ii) [27]            Sub-paragraph (b)(ii) reads as follows: (b) (ii) where the agreement or order is varied after April 1997 to change the child support amounts payable to the recipient, the day on which the first payment of the varied amount is required to be made, b) (ii) si l’accord ou l’ordonnance fait l’objet d’une modification après avril 1997 touchant le montant de la pension alimentaire pour enfants qui est payable au bénéficiaire, le jour où le montant modifié est à verser pour la première fois,     [28]            The Tax Court Judge held that while the July Order varied the Separation Agreement, the variance did not result in any change to the amount that was required to be paid by Mr. ... Whether that condition is met in a particular case turns on the interpretation of the agreement or order, which may in certain cases require consideration of extraneous evidence. ...

By said transaction, 157699 Canada Inc. and Saviva Holdings Ltd. agreed solidarily to pay to Trisud the sum of $700,000 in final settlement regarding court file 500-05-003691-944 (Appeal Court no. 500-09-009116-005) in consideration of which Trisud subrogated 157699 Canada Inc. and Saviva Holdings Ltd. to the extent of 50% each, all of its rights against 152817 Canada Inc., David Stein, 144945 Canada Inc. and Pinchos Freund.   27.       ... In consideration of the payment of $700,000 to Trisud, a Declaration of Settlement in Court file 500-05-009116-005 was executed.   30.       In consideration of the payment of same, Trisud discontinued its action in court file 500-05-055612-004 without costs and without further recourse against all Defendants, including the Appellant ...

  [20]            The September 18, 2007 partial judgment also required the parties to make further submissions on a point of law that was then under consideration in this Court in Le Ministre du Revenu National c. ... I agree with the Minister that this is a relevant consideration in cases such as this. ... In the circumstances of this case, that is a consideration that outweighs any interest eBay Canada may have in not disclosing information about PowerSellers.   ...

The issue was the judge's authority to modify his original judgment, which in turn led to a consideration of the status of his oral reasons. [21]            Marceau J.A. reasoned that if the judge was entitled to change his mind as he did, then clearly he could correct the judgment to make it accord with his reasons. ... It is the fact of the differences, as opposed to any consideration of their materiality, which leads me to conclude that the written reasons must therefore be set aside. [27]            As a result, the motion is allowed and the written reasons dated November 22, 2004, are to be removed from the appeal book. ... A failure to comply with the time limit found at subsection 18.22(1) of the Tax Court of Canada Act does not deprive the court of jurisdiction with respect to the appeal under consideration. ...

In the context of the exemption from taxation in the Indian Act, there are three important considerations: the purpose of the exemption; the character of the property in question; and the incidence of taxation upon that property. ... The connecting factors test from Williams requires consideration of all of the characteristics of the property in issue. ... A more technical meaning is derived from a consideration of the contractual nature of the banking relationship, which has been consistently characterized judicially as one of debtor and creditor (see § 3202). ...

Publication triggers a 60-day statutory public comment period (subsection 77(5)), following which a final decision on the proposed measure is published in the Gazette (subsection 77(6)). [11]            If, after taking into consideration the comments filed during the statutory public comment period, the Ministers are of the view that the substance should be added to the List of Toxic Substances, the Act mandates that the Ministers shall make a recommendation to the Governor in Council for an order that the substance be added (subsections 77(6) and 77(9)). [12]            The publication of a proposed order triggers a further 60 day period for public comment. ... Consideration of BENPAT as a toxic substance [16]            In 2006, the Ministers published a notice under paragraphs 71(1)(a) and (b) of the Act which required certain persons to provide information for the purpose of assessing whether BENPAT, among other substances, was toxic or capable of becoming toxic. ... The risk management report outlined the nature of the regulatory controls under consideration. ...

The Appellant also filed a large binder of documents (Exhibit A-1) which set out in detail all of her medical records for the period in question as well as documenting all of her and her husband’s expenses for travel, accommodation and meals while travelling to and staying in Thailand and Cambodia during the period here under consideration. [6]               Some background is necessary in order to understand the parties’ positions. ... They travelled to all of these countries primarily for the warm climate as well as for other considerations. One of the considerations that determined where they would travel was the availability of medical services since it was highly likely that the Appellant would require such services no matter where she was. ...

The Services provided to Pratt, in consideration for the System, were largely completed by the time the System was in the appellant’s possession and such Services required little or no use of the System. [21]          The respondent’s position is that the activities must meet the criterion in the SRED definition in subsection 248(1) and the Amount must fall squarely within the specific conditions in the Subclause to qualify as a SRED capital expenditure. ... The phrase “related to” should be given a broad interpretation for the purposes of determining whether actual use of the System was “related to” the appellant’s business (“Second point”). [13] [37]          Third, because the Minister disallowed the Amount as a capital SRED expenditure, in part because it applied the commercial use exclusion, if the Court finds that the exclusion does not apply, the Court should find that its actual use of the System was for SRED and therefore it intended to use the System all or substantially all for the prosecution of SRED. [14] [38]          The appellant noted that in Feedlot Health Management Services Ltd. v Canada, the Court said “the commercial use exclusion relates to the work performed and not the consideration paid.” The mere fact, the appellant says, that it has occasionally received payments for performing work using the System does not mean that the commercial use exclusion applied (“Third point”). [15] I fail to see how the proposition applies in the present appeal because “consideration” referred to in Feedlot Health comprise of payments made by the SRED expense claimant to a third party for the third party’s assistance in the course of the claimant’s SRED activities. ...

I will consider each of the three components of this factor separately. [8]   Neither party argued that the nature of the proceeding was a relevant consideration. [9]   CIBC argues that the issues involved in the appeals are of public significance. ... The Court stated that judges “must fulfil their gatekeeper role to ensure that unnecessary, irrelevant and potentially distracting expert … evidence is not allowed to extend and complicate court proceedings.” [23] The Court went on to suggest that “proposed expert … evidence be a matter for consideration at the case management stage of proceedings so that if such evidence would not be admissible at trial, much of the costs of engaging experts … may be avoided.” [24] [32]   From a policy point of view, it is hard to imagine why the potential duplication of expert witnesses would not be a factor to be considered under subsection 145(5). If such considerations were not permitted, a party who otherwise satisfied the subsection 145(5) factors could obtain leave to serve hundreds of nearly identical expert witness reports on the other side, forcing the other side to prepare and serve rebuttals to each one. ...

DISCUSSION [13]   Pursuant to subsection 165(1), the recipient of a taxable supply made in Canada has to pay GST/HST on the value of the consideration for the supply. ... zero-rated supply means a supply included in Schedule VI.. . .  165(1) Imposition of goods and services tax — Subject to this Part, every recipient of a taxable supply made in Canada shall pay to Her Majesty in right of Canada tax in respect of the supply calculated at the rate of 5% on the value of the consideration for the supply. (2) Tax in participating province — Subject to this Part, every recipient of a taxable supply made in a participating province shall pay to Her Majesty in right of Canada, in addition to the tax imposed by subsection (1), tax in respect of the supply calculated at the tax rate for that province on the value of the consideration for the supply. (3) Zero-rated supply — The tax rate in respect of a taxable supply that is a zero-rated supply is 0%.. . .  221(1) Collection of tax — Every person who makes a taxable supply shall, as agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada, collect the tax under Division II payable by the recipient in respect of the supply.. . .  225(1) Net tax — Subject to this Subdivision, the net tax for a particular reporting period of a person is the positive or negative amount determined by the formula A- B where A is the total of (a) all amounts that became collectible and all other amounts collected by the person in the particular reporting period as or on account of tax under Division II, and (b) all amounts that are required under this Part to be added in determining the net tax of the person for the particular reporting period; and B is the total of (a) all amounts each of which is an input tax credit for the particular reporting period or a preceding reporting period of the person claimed by the person in the return under this Division filed by the person for the particular reporting period, and (b) all amounts each of which is an amount that may be deducted by the person under this Part in determining the net tax of the person for the particular reporting period and that is claimed by the person in the return under this Division filed by the person for the particular reporting period.. . .  228(1) Calculation of net tax — Every person who is required to file a return under this Division shall, in the return, calculate the net tax of the person for the reporting period for which the return is required to be filed, except where subsection (2.1) or (2.3) applies in respect of the reporting period. (2) Remittance [of net tax] — Where the net tax for a reporting period of a person is a positive amount, the person shall, except where subsection (2.1) or (2.3) applies in respect of the reporting period, remit that amount to the Receiver General, (a) where the person is an individual to whom subparagraph 238(1)(a)(ii) applies in respect of the reporting period, on or before April 30 of the year following the end of the reporting period; and (b) in any other case, on or before the day on or before which the return for that period is required to be filed. . .  286(1) Keeping books and records — Every person who carries on a business or is engaged in a commercial activity in Canada, every person who is required under this Part to file a return and every person who makes an application for a rebate or refund shall keep records in English or in French in Canada, or at such other place and on such terms and conditions as the Minister may specify in writing, in such form and containing such information as will enable the determination of the person’s liabilities and obligations under this Part or the amount of any rebate or refund to which the person is entitled.     ...