Search - consideration

Argument of counsel for the respondent [98] The respondent never alleged that the payer was a sham company, but it was in fact entirely and exclusively controlled by the appellant. [99] Moreover, the appellant had registered his trade name before transferring it to the payer. [100] According to the financial statements, $750 is still owed on the payer's shares. [101] Section 25 of the Canada Business Corporations Act reads as follows: 25. (1) [Issue of shares] Subject to the articles, the by-laws and any unanimous shareholder agreement and to section 28, shares may be issued at such times and to such persons and for such consideration as the directors may determine. (2) [Shares non-assessable] Shares issued by a corporation are non-assessable and the holders are not liable to the corporation or to its creditors in respect thereof. (3) [Consideration] A share shall not be issued until the consideration for the share is fully paid in money or in property or past services that are not less in value than the fair equivalent of the money that the corporation would have received if the share had been issued for money. (4) [Consideration other than money] In determining whether property or past services are the fair equivalent of a money consideration, the directors may take into account reasonable charges and expenses of organization and reorganization and payments for property and past services reasonably expected to benefit the corporation. (5) [Definition of "property"] For the purposes of this section, "property" does not include a promissory note or a promise to pay. ... Gomery of the Superior Court wrote (at p. 1853): "The issuance of the shares for an inadequate consideration made them a nullity, and the certificates in Respondent's possession are worthless pieces of paper". [103] There is no evidence that the appellant was reimbursed by the payer for the initial payment made on the skidder. [104] The sureties provided by the appellant in support of the payer for $25,000, $6,500 and $6,500, were substantial and he was the only person to provide them. [105] It is clear from the invoices (Exhibit I-7) that the appellant did work free of charge outside the periods at issue: he received telephone calls and made deliveries of firewood throughout the year. [106] He provided wood to the payer free of charge and this was a big gift. [107] It is true that when the respondent doubted the information given by the appellant he used the words [TRANSLATION] "allegedly" or "alleged", but there is nothing wrong in that. [108] The word [TRANSLATION] "alleged" was used in subparagraph (f) above because even in 1995 the shares of the other shareholders had not been paid for yet. [109] In subparagraph (j) the appellant admitted at the hearing that it was he who hired and fired staff; moreover, in his statutory declaration (Exhibit I-11) Jean-Pierre St-Laurent said that it was the appellant who looked after running the business. [110] It is clear that the payer could not have existed without the appellant, and in making a decision the facts must be looked at as a whole. [111] In Carmelo Scalia v. ...

These facts tend to evidence such a degree of control by Yellow Cab as to favour indicating that the lease operators were employees. [26]            Another consideration is who owns the tools of the trade. ... Consequently, the consideration of who "owns the tools" favours the lease-operators as being "operators of their own business". [27]            Further considerations are the risk of loss and the chance of profit. ... ANALYSIS Common Law Considerations [74]            Considerable argument focused on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in 2001 SCC 59 "> 671122 Ontario Limited v. ...

Gervais was therefore deemed to have disposed of these shares for a consideration equal to their ACB, – i.e.: $43,889, and Ms. ... I use rounded figures to facilitate this exercise. [47]            The sale was made for a consideration equal to the fair market value of the shares, which is consistent with the consideration which would otherwise have been deemed pursuant to paragraph 69(1)(b). ... Gervais – to have received a consideration equal to the ACB of the gifted shares in his hands (for present purposes, close to 0 cents) and, at the same time, Ms. ...

Canada (Min. of Employment and Immigration), [1985] 2 F.C. 263 that the underlying consideration in an application to extend time is to ensure that justice is done between the parties. The above stated four-pronged test is a means of ensuring the fulfillment of the underlying consideration. ... In my opinion, the Appellant was successful in showing the Court he had an arguable case since, as indicated above, a successful party has a presumptive right to substantial indemnity costs, provided all the requirements of subsection   147(3.1) of the Rules are met (Venngo, supra). [40]   Furthermore, I   am of the view that consideration should be given to the purpose of subsection   147(3.1) of the Rules which is to encourage parties to settle wherever possible (Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v The Queen, 2015   TCC   171 at para   8, 2015  DTC 1159 [Sun Life]). [41]   For these reasons, and in order to ensure that justice is done between the parties, which is the underlying consideration in an application to extend time, I   will grant the motion for an extension of time for the Appellant to make submissions for enhanced costs. 3.   ...

About a month later, Products transferred its CAHL shares to Holdings and received the one and only common share of Holdings as consideration therefor. ... It would seem to follow that consideration of legislative purpose may not only resolve patent ambiguity, but may, on occasion, reveal ambiguity in apparently plain language.” ... Canada has agreed with its treaty partners that, if a resident of one of those countries becomes subject to the Canadian tax régime, further specific Canadian tax considerations will apply. ...

He finally said that his father had transferred them to him for consideration of $1 a share ...   [45]          The minutes of March 20, 2001, provided for the issue of shares in the Payor as follows:   Subscriber Number & class of shares Nature of consideration Total consideration         Yvon Lepage 23 Class A shares Cash 23.00 Frédéric Lepage 29 Class A shares Cash 29.00 Gaétane Beaulieu 48 Class A shares Cash 48.00   [46]          Each of those parties obtained shares directly from the Payor ...

Where discrimination has been found and breaches of section 15(1) have occurred (and where section 15(2) is not applicable)- any justification or consideration of the reasonableness of the enactment, or an consideration of factors which could justify the discrimination and support the constitutionality of the impugned enactment could take place under section 1 of the Charter (underlining added).             ... Where the Court is called upon to determine a discrimination claim under subsection 15(1) of the Charter, it should make these three broad inquiries: (a)         Does the impugned law draw a formal distinction between the claimant and others based on one or more personal characteristics, or fail to take into account the claimant's already-disadvantaged position in Canadian society resulting in substantively differential treatment between the claimant and others based on one or more personal characteristics; (b)         Is the claimant subject to differential treatment based on one or more enumerated or analogous grounds; (c)         Does the differential treatment discriminate by imposing a burden upon or withholding a benefit from the claimant in a way that 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 issue is not whether distinctions are made in legislation, but whether the effect of the legislation is discriminatory on an individual or group because it either imposes a burden or withholds a benefit from that individual or group because of a relevant personal characteristic in a way that makes the individual or group less worthy of concern, respect or consideration. ...

It is essentially the same issue as the larger Sandringham issue and the CRA seems to be postponing the consideration of the refund issue until the Sandringham issue is resolved. ... The Court is concerned about the CRA postponing indefinitely the consideration of whether the refunds are due. ... Zucker responded that “the information IT bulletin is not law, its just something that is there, and I did not take that into consideration”. [50] The Minister takes the position that the CRA does not have to consider the policy because it simply does not apply in this case. ...

Where the duty sought to be enforced is discretionary, the following rules apply: (a) in exercising a discretion, the decision-maker must not act in a manner which can be characterized as "unfair", "oppressive" or demonstrate "flagrant impropriety" or "bad faith"; (b) mandamus is unavailable if the decision-maker's discretion is characterized as being "unqualified", "absolute", "permissive" or "unfettered"; (c) in the exercise of a "fettered" discretion, the decision-maker must act upon "relevant", as opposed to "irrelevant", considerations: (d) mandamus is unavailable to compel the exercise of a "fettered discretion" in a particular way; and (e) mandamus is only available when the decision-maker's discretion is "spent", i.e., the applicant has a vested right to the performance of the duty.... 5. ... Where the duty sought to be enforced is discretionary, the following rules apply: (a) in exercising a discretion, the decision-maker must not act in a manner which can be characterized as "unfair", "oppressive" or demonstrate "flagrant impropriety" or "bad faith"; (b) mandamus is unavailable if the decision-maker's discretion is characterized as being "unqualified", "absolute", "permissive" or "unfettered"; (c) in the exercise of a "fettered" discretion, the decision-maker must act upon "relevant", as opposed to "irrelevant", considerations: (d) mandamus is unavailable to compel the exercise of a "fettered discretion" in a particular way; and (e) mandamus is only available when the decision-maker's discretion is "spent", i.e., the applicant has a vested right to the performance of the duty. ...

Loi sur les douanes [...]    108. (1) L'agent peut communiquer ou laisser communiquer des renseignements obtenus en vertu de la présente loi ou du Tarif des douanes aux personnes suivantes, ou laisser celles-ci examiner les livres, dossiers, écrits ou autres documents obtenus par le ministre ou en son nom pour l'application de ces lois, ou y avoir accčs: a) les agents ou les personnes employées par le ministčre du Revenu national; b) les personnes autorisées par le ministre ou appartenant ą une catégorie de personnes ainsi autorisées, sous réserve des conditions que celui-ci précise; c) les personnes ayant, d'une faēon générale, légalement qualité ą cet égard. [...] [8] The Motions Judge answered the stated question in the negative essentially for the reason that a blanket authorization issued by the Minister of National Revenue on July 26, 1991 was "an invalid exercise of discretion" as an unlawful fetter on the future exercise of discretion and as based on irrelevant considerations. ... We add in passing that subsection 108(1) of the Customs Act refers to "the purposes" of the Act when it deals with collection and does not do so when it deals with disclosure. [20]       In the end, therefore, we are of the view that paragraph 8(2)(b) of the Privacy Act has a much wider meaning than that suggested by the Commissioner and that paragraph 108(1)(b) of the Customs Act gives the Minister of National Revenue the discretionary power to authorize the arrangement at issue with the Canadian Employment Insurance Commission. [21]       In exercising her discretion under paragraph 108(1)(b) of the Customs Act, the Minister of National Revenue had to take into consideration the objectives of the Privacy Act. ...