Search - consideration

The rate of the tax paid under the former Act was obviously an essential consideration in identifying the tax paid under the former Act, which was taken into account by the Minister in formulating each of the factors prescribed ... He had to identify the factor most likely to achieve the objective established by Parliament, based on relevant considerations. The way in which alcoholic beverages were treated disregarded the considerations that were relevant in identifying the tax that had been paid on those goods, and is contrary to the purpose of the Act. [45]            Like the Trial Judge, I therefore conclude that subsection 3(h) of the Regulations is ultra vires. ...

One consideration may point so clearly that it dominates other and vaguer indications in the contrary direction. ... There is no fixed list as to what should be considered and there is no fixed weighting. [80]         What I will do is enumerate some of the factors to be considered and discuss them in the context of this case. [81]         Of course, the first factor to consider is whether or not the work in issue creates something which will last for a certain time (the question of enduring benefit). [22] [82]         Other considerations include: 1.       ... In addition, it appears that this improvement was part of work done on a line which Highland Railway had recently acquired from another company, in which case different considerations apply from the appeal before me; however, it is not entirely clear from the decision if that was the case. [32] This is not an easy result to reach and one would wish for somewhat brighter lines that would reduce the uncertainty in cases such as this so that everyone knew where they stood. ...

Considerations of fairness must radiate throughout every step of the section 37 proceedings. [17]   Furthermore, I offered the Respondent the opportunity to submit, confidentially, questions that he wished the Court to ask Ms. ... Therefore, the Court has taken into consideration the fact that the parties did not have the opportunity to respond to one another’s arguments on all points. [28]   The Applicant argues that the public interest in disclosing the Redacted Information is outweighed by the immediate and unnecessary harm to Canada’s ability to administer and enforce the ITA, and specifically to conduct functional audits of taxpayers. [29]   On the other hand, the Respondent argues that the public interest being advanced by the Applicant relates to the carrying out of routine government responsibilities, some of which are publicly disclosed. ... That said, the Court must be alert to fairness considerations in judicial review applications, to ensure that the tribunal record contains all possible elements not covered by the privilege that were in front of the decision-maker when the decision under review was taken. [12]   The Court has determined that, in the present proceedings, the following procedure should be followed:   1.   ...

He also admits that at the time the payments were made, Global was controlled by his father, Walter Jefferson and that at the time of the assessment Global owed at least $603,621.81 under the Act for its 1999, 2000, and 2001 taxation years. [3]   The only issue before me is whether the Appellant provided consideration for the transfers from Global. ... His counsel submits that he has made out a prima facie case that he provided consideration to Global for the payments Global made to him in 2003 and has therefore demolished the Minister’s assumption to the contrary. ... The net result is that the Appellant will be considered to have given consideration equal to 26.21% of all of the amounts remaining in issue (after taking into account the concessions made by the Appellant) for the payments he received from Global. ...

[33]   The Prime Minister argues that some of the information severed by the Judge as being purely factual either contains normative elements of advice that should remain exempt from disclosure, is intertwined in the analysis for consideration ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||, or cannot reasonably be severed without directly or indirectly revealing exempt information. ... The fact that he did not repeat the same discussion in the context of paragraph 21(1)(a) and section 23 of the Act cannot be taken as an indication that he was unaware or oblivious to those considerations in the exercise of his discretion pursuant to these two provisions. [88]   Finally, an internal Memorandum by PCO officials in the Access to Information and Privacy Unit dated December 10, 2013 (Appeal Book, vol. 6, tab 9(5) at p. 1041), also reveals that public interest considerations were front and centre in the exercise of the discretion conferred by the Act. ... If anything, it is even more obvious, in light of the record (Appeal Book, vol. 2, tab 6(11), at pp. 200-202), that PCO took into consideration all relevant factors in exercising the discretion conferred by subsection 19(2) than it did when exercising its discretion under paragraph 21(1)(a) and section 23 of the Act. ...

Consideration of the elements of the standard of review analysis leads to a similar conclusion. [49]   One of the elements to be considered in a standard of review analysis is whether there is a privative clause in the enabling legislation. ... Given that the CAO is entirely a creature of CFIA policy, it follows that there is no statutory privative clause regarding its recommendations, and thus no statutory direction from Parliament indicating the need for deference to CAO recommendations. [50]   The second consideration in the standard of review analysis is whether there is a discrete and special administrative regime in which the decision maker has special expertise. ... In order to be able to express their political views in this manner, however, consumers need to have accurate information as to the origin of the products under consideration. ...

Thus, some criteria that were but considerations are now essential conditions, while others have become less important. ... The court is therefore not barred from taking other factors into account, such as certain of the considerations that were formerly applied in relation to the fourth criterion of the Wigmore test. The case law from before the enactment of s. 39.1   CEA   remains relevant, although the application of such additional considerations must not have the effect of eclipsing the ones explicitly retained by Parliament. ...

Couture in consideration of the sum of $1 and the release from the aforementioned obligations. ... Subsidiary subscribed 176 class D preferred shares of S.L.M. for a total consideration of $1,760,000. ... Subsidiary, “in consideration of the purchase of the contract shares”, had subscribed 176 class D preferred shares of S.L.M. for the sum of $1,760,000. ...

Whatever tests are applied, however and whatever considerations are weighed, the effort of the valuer must be directed to finding that fair market value in a hypothetical transaction in a hypothetical market. ... I would, Sir, I would take into consideration on that would be the cost of my money tied up over that time, the cost of the travel, the cost of hotels, and that type of thing, but I sure wouldn’t be including time. ... Certainly supply and demand have a bearing, and as to supply the factor of the rarity of the notes must be taken into consideration, tempered by the condition of the notes. ...

Subsection 97(2) reads in full: 97(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, other than subsection 85(5.1), where at any time after November 12, 1981 a taxpayer has disposed of any capital property, a Canadian resource property, a foreign resource property, an eligible capital property or an inventory to a partnership that immediately after that time was a Canadian partnership of which the taxpayer was a member, if the taxpayer and all the other members of the partnership have jointly so elected in prescribed form and within the time referred to in subsection 96(4), the following rules apply: (a) the provisions of paragraphs 85(l)(a) to (f) apply to the disposition as if (i) the reference therein to “corporation’s cost” were read as a reference to “partnership’s cost”, (ii) the reference therein to “other than any shares of the capital stock of the corporation or a right to receive any such shares” and to “other than shares of the capital stock of the corporation or a right to receive any such shares” were read as references to “other than an interest in the partnership”, (iii) the reference therein to “shareholder of the corporation” were read as references to “member of the partnership”, (iv) the references therein to “the corporation” were read as references to “all the other members of the partnership”, and (v) the references therein to “to the corporation” were read as references to “to the partnership”; (b) in computing, at any time after the disposition, the adjusted cost base to the taxpayer of his interest in the partnership immediately after the disposition, (i) there shall be added the amount, if any, by which the taxpayer’s proceeds of disposition of the property exceed the fair market value, at the time of the disposition, of the consideration (other than an interest in the partnership) received by the taxpayer for the property, and (ii) there shall be deducted the amount, if any, by which the fair market value, at the time of the disposition, of the consideration (other than an interest in the partnership) received by the taxpayer for the property so disposed of by him exceeds the fair market value of the property at the time of the disposition; and (c) where the property so disposed of by the taxpayer to the partnership is taxable Canadian property of the taxpayer, the interest in the partnership received by him as consideration therefor shall be deemed to be taxable Canadian property of the taxpayer. ... The purchase price named by Central reflected certain tax considerations, the most important of which involved the depreciated value of Leasing’s assets. ... With respect, the Tax Court Judge erred in law by relying exclusively on documents and forms and did not give proper consideration to the reality of the situation. [19] The facts as found by him should have led him to the conclusion that there was no valid partnership formed, even though the parties tried to make it appear that there was. ...