Search - consideration

John Day Jackson, a resident of New Haven, in the State of Connecticut, one of the United States of America, executed a deed of donation in trust, before a notary public in Montreal, Province of Quebec, dated 19th February, 1918, in favour of The Royal Trust Company (the present respondent) as Trustee, whereby, in consideration of the love and affection he bore towards his children, he gave as a donation inter vivos and irrevocable, unto the Trustee in. trust for the purposes therein mentioned, the Canadian securities described in the schedule to the deed. ...

I have no doubt that, if the guiding mind of the appellant were to have frankly answered questions at the time of acquisition, he would have agreed that the appellant might itself, at an appropriate time, erect on the land buildings suitable for the developing neighbourhood, with a view to renting them or selling them; he would also have agreed that, if the right opportunity or opportunities arose, the appellant might sell some or all of the property, and he would also have agreed that a really attractive bare land leasing proposal would receive careful consideration by the appellant. ...

Davis, who gave the decision of the Tax Appeal Board, and those briefly set out above, I would allow the appeal as to the shares in Leckie Enterprises Limited, dismiss the appeal as to the shares in Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company Limited and [Page 295] direct that the assessment be referred back to the appellant for re-consideration and re‑assessment in accordance with these reasons. ...

[Page 12] After a consideration of the record in the light of the full and helpful arguments of counsel I find myself so fully in agreement with the reasons and conclusion of Noël J. that I am content simply to adopt them. ...

All these considerations lead to the conclusion that the appeal to this Court from a decision of the Income Tax Appeal Board, whether by the taxpayer or by the Minister, is a trial de novo of the issues involved, that the parties are not restricted to the issues either of fact or of law that were before the Board but are free to raise whatever issues they wish even if different from those raised before the Board and that it is the duty of the Court to hear and determine such issues without regard to the proceedings before the Board and without being affected by any findings made by it. ...

The consideration for this grant, as set out in the sublease, consisted of (a) a payment of $100,000 per year to be made to the Province of Quebec, (b) the sublessee's share of the duties payable under the Quebec Mining Act, and (c) an overriding royalty on all iron ore and specialties shipped by the Sublessee under this Sublease from any mines upon the described lands (except iron ore and specialties shipped for the account of the Sublessor) and sold and delivered each year by the Sublessee, of seven per cent of the then competitive market price f.o.b. vessels at Seven Islands, Quebec (determined as provided in Section 2 of the Mutual Covenants of this Sublease) for each grade and kind of such iron ore and specialties, which the Sublessee binds itself to pay to the sublessor during the term hereof; provided however, that, in the event seven per cent of such competitive market price for any grade or kind of such iron ore or specialties shall be less than twenty-five cents a ton, then the overriding royalty on such iron ore and specialties shall be twenty-five cents a ton. ...

The difference cannot be stated in precise and definite terms, but each case must be determined after all of the relevant factors are taken into consideration, but the foregoing indicates in a general way the essential difference. ...

Such a determination would require an examination of the impugned evidence and the method by which it was obtained, an inquiry into the seriousness of any Charter breach and a consideration of whether the evidence was already in possession of the Crown or would have been discovered in any event. ...

But once this characterization, which as I said is not decisive, is disregarded, it is obvious that the contracts lack the clarity attributed to them by the appellant. [13]      For example, the fact that the price of the alleged assignment is expressed in terms of "market value" (which presupposes that there will be no price, and thus no sale, if there is no collection), the fact that the price is a percentage of the amount collected, the fact that the so-called purchaser of the debts undertakes to pay the vendor the receivables not collected within six months of the date of the contract for one dollar and other consideration, and the fact that the so-called purchaser has the Bank, the vendor"s creditor, assume all of the legal costs associated with the recovery of the receivables, suggest that this supposed assignment is made much more in the interest of the vendor or the trustee or the Bank than that of the purchaser. ...

(iii) any expense incurred by him (other than an expense incurred in drilling or completing an oil or gas well or in building a temporary access road to, or preparing a site in respect of, any such well) for the purpose of determining the existence, location, extent or quality of a mineral resource in Canada including any expense incurred in the course of (A) prospecting, (B) carrying out geological, geophysical or geochemical surveys, (C) drilling by rotary, diamond, percussion or other methods, or (D) trenching, digging test pits and preliminary sampling, but not including (E) any Canadian development expense, or (F) any expense that may reasonably be considered to be related to a mine that has come into production in reasonable commercial quantities or to be related to a potential or actual extension thereof, (iii.1) any expense incurred by him after November 16, 1978 for the purpose of bringing a new mine in a mineral resource in Canada into production in reasonable commercial quantities and incurred before the coming into production of the new mine, including (A) clearing, removing overburden and stripping, and (B) sinking a mine shaft, constructing an adit or other underground entry,... but, for greater certainty, shall not include (vi) any consideration given by the taxpayer for any share or any interest therein or right thereto, except as provided by subparagraph (v), or (vii) any expense described in subparagraph (v) incurred by any other taxpayer to the extent that the expense was, (A) by virtue of that subparagraph, a Canadian exploration expense of that other taxpayer, (B) by virtue of subparagraph 66.2(5)(a)(v), a Canadian development expense of that other taxpayer, or (C) by virtue of subparagraph 66.4(5)(a)(iii), a Canadian oil and gas property expense of that other taxpayer, but any assistance that a taxpayer has received or is entitled to receive after May 25, 1976 in respect of or related to his Canadian exploration expense shall not reduce the amount of any of the expenses described in any of subparagraphs (I) to (v); [my emphasis] 66.1(6)a) "frais d'exploration au Canada " d'un contribuable s'entend des dépenses suivantes engagées après le 6 mai 1974: [...] ...