Search - consideration

It reads: 254(2)  Where (a)        a builder of a single unit residential complex or a residential condominium unit makes a taxable supply by way of sale of the complex or unit to a particular individual, (b)        at the time the particular individual becomes liable or assumes liability under an agreement of purchase and sale of the complex or unit entered into between the builder and the particular individual, the particular individual is acquiring the complex or unit for use as the primary place of residence of the particular individual or a relation of the particular individual, (c)        the total (in this subsection referred to as the “total consideration”) of all amounts, each of which is the consideration payable for the supply to the particular individual of the complex or unit or for any other taxable supply to the particular individual of an interest in the complex or unit, is less than $450,000, (d)       the particular individual has paid all of the tax under Division II payable in respect of the supply of the complex or unit and in respect of any other supply to the individual of an interest in the complex or unit (the total of which tax under subsection 165(1) is referred to in this subsection as the “total tax paid by the particular individual”), (e)        ownership of the complex or unit is transferred to the particular individual after the construction or substantial renovation thereof is substantially completed, (f)        after the construction or substantial renovation is substantially completed and before possession of the complex or unit is given to the particular individual under the agreement of purchase and sale of the complex or unit (i)         in the case of a single unit residential complex, the complex was not occupied by any individual as a place of residence or lodging, and (ii)        in the case of a residential condominium unit, the unit was not occupied by an individual as a place of residence or lodging unless, throughout the time the complex or unit was so occupied, it was occupied as a place of residence by an individual, or a relation of an individual, who was at the time of that occupancy a purchaser of the unit under an agreement of purchase and sale of the unit, and (g)        either (i)         the first individual to occupy the complex or unit as a place of residence at any time after substantial completion of the construction or renovation is (A)       in the case of a single unit residential complex, the particular individual or a relation of the particular individual, and (B)       in the case of a residential condominium unit, an individual, or a relation of an individual, who was at that time a purchaser of the unit under an agreement of purchase and sale of the unit, or (ii)        the particular individual makes an exempt supply by way of sale of the complex or unit and ownership thereof is transferred to the recipient of the supply before the complex or unit is occupied by any individual as a place of residence or lodging, the Minister shall, subject to subsection (3), pay a rebate to the particular individual … [12]         It is also useful to produce section 262(3) of the Act. ...

Kandiah to bring himself within the requirements of section 254 of the Excise Tax Act (the  “ Act ”), which reads: (2) Where (a)        a builder of a single unit residential complex or a residential condominium unit makes a taxable supply by way of sale of the complex or unit to a particular individual, (b)        at the time the particular individual becomes liable or assumes liability under an agreement of purchase and sale of the complex or unit entered into between the builder and the particular individual, the particular individual is acquiring the complex or unit for use as the primary place of residence of the particular individual or a relation of the particular individual, (c)        the total (in this subsection referred to as the “total consideration”) of all amounts, each of which is the consideration payable for the supply to the particular individual of the complex or unit or for any other taxable supply to the particular individual of an interest in the complex or unit, is less than $450,000, (d)        the particular individual has paid all of the tax under Division II payable in respect of the supply of the complex or unit and in respect of any other supply to the individual of an interest in the complex or unit (the total of which tax under subsection 165(1) is referred to in this subsection as the “total tax paid by the particular individual”), (e)        ownership of the complex or unit is transferred to the particular individual after the construction or substantial renovation thereof is substantially completed, (f)         after the construction or substantial renovation is substantially completed and before possession of the complex or unit is given to the particular individual under the agreement of purchase and sale of the complex or unit (i)         in the case of a single unit residential complex, the complex was not occupied by any individual as a place of residence or lodging, and (ii)        in the case of a residential condominium unit, the unit was not occupied by an individual as a place of residence or lodging unless, throughout the time the complex or unit was so occupied, it was occupied as a place of residence by an individual, or a relation of an individual, who was at the time of that occupancy a purchaser of the unit under an agreement of purchase and sale of the unit, and (g)        either (i)         the first individual to occupy the complex or unit as a place of residence at any time after substantial completion of the construction or renovation is (A)       in the case of a single unit residential complex, the particular individual or a relation of the particular individual, and (B)       in the case of a residential condominium unit, an individual, or a relation of an individual, who was at that time a purchaser of the unit under an agreement of purchase and sale of the unit, or (ii)        the particular individual makes an exempt supply by way of sale of the complex or unit and ownership thereof is transferred to the recipient of the supply before the complex or unit is occupied by any individual as a place of residence or lodging, … Facts [2]              Mr. ...

  [25]      Although this Court’s Rule 152 differs in some respect from Ontario’s Rule 57.07, notably our rule does not refer to negligence but to misconduct, the words of Molloy J. and Granger J. are equally applicable to a consideration of our Rule 152 ... Those considerations do not apply here. We simply have a counsel whose behaviour towards this Court and whose failure to comply with a court order is inexcusable. ...

I will therefore limit my consideration to this one item. [11]         On discovery, Ms. ... and “When do tax considerations satisfy the purpose test?” [31]         If it were not for the potential application of the fresh step rule, the purpose test assumptions should be struck out with leave to amend to extricate the factual elements. [32]         The second question to be decided is whether this motion should be prohibited by the fresh step rule in section 8 of the Rules because the motion was brought after Gerbro undertook discoveries. [33]         Section 8 of the Rules provides: 8. ...

Petrovsky's value of the land that was used to make the assessments "was not fair or accurate" and states his reasons:   ·                     To determine the Land value, comparisons were made with other commercial land sales in the area, however, no consideration was given to the location of the property versus other comparables ... Since properties are seldom identical, considerations are made to equate for differences from the subject. ...

(b)              On January 14, 2008, the tax debtor and his spouse jointly sold an immovable located at 1275 Chénard Street in Laval (the family residence) to the appellant for a consideration of $250,000, $34,013.65 of which should have been paid by the appellant as a down payment (the contract of sale).     ...   [16]         David Bafri specified that the loan had been granted to Fiducie Alex Trust without consideration and without any security. ...

The applicant submitted that the Court must take into consideration the exceptional circumstances in this case, for example:   a)       The applicant was without legal representation in this case (he claimed to be represented by counsel only in the criminal case parallel to this one);   b)       The applicant truly believed throughout the process that the 90-day time limit specified in the Act began to run when he received the decision;   c)       In any event, the applicant exceeded the time limit only by 24 hours; and   d)       The respondent did not suffer any prejudice ... Accordingly, in Sharma, the Court of Appeal took into consideration its judgment in Dawe and dismissed the appeal before it ...

The policy considerations underlying the doctrine include the need to have an end to litigation, as well as the desire to protect individuals from having to defend multiple legal proceedings arising out of the same set of circumstances: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248 "> Angle v. ... No. 334, 43 F.T.R. 47, at 69 (F.C.T.D.). [24]            Moreover, quite apart from statutory considerations, a reluctance to apply the doctrine of issue estoppel to the determination of human rights complaints by specialist tribunals has also been expressed on policy grounds: Canada Post Corp. v. ...

)   [15]            Under section 15(1) of the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act, the Tribunal is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence and is directed to deal with its cases as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness and natural justice permit.  ... In that context, the obligation to give effective notice is driven by the ultimate consideration of fairness and not by technical formalities.  ...

While the September 10, 2003 letter might lead one to the conclusion that the respondent had fettered his discretion by confining his consideration of the request to whether there were extraordinary circumstances, as described, that was neither the beginning nor the end of the matter. ... I see nothing in the subsequent letter from applicant's counsel dated May 24, 2005 that would have required further consideration by the Minister.  ...