Search - consideration
Results 7521 - 7530 of 11337 for consideration
FCTD
Sherman v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2006 FC 1121
First, the legitimacy of an order is an irrelevant consideration in a contempt proceeding. ...
FCTD
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), docket T-241-98
., smoked); (ii) It based the Decision in whole or in part on the irrelevant consideration of Revenue Canada's own "view" of how the product will be consumed; (iii) Further, and in the alternative to grounds (i) and (ii), it based the Decision on erroneous findings of facts, namely, that the products in question could not be consumed (i.e., smoked) as is and that the products will be further prepared before being smoked; (iv) The Excise Act, supra, the Excise Tax Act, supra, the Department of National Revenue Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.N-16, and the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.F-7 (sections 18 and 18.1). ...
FCTD
Fegol v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), docket T-2836-94
However, he makes it clear, in setting out, at length, the arguments made by both sides, that he has given the whole matter ample consideration. [18] In Rubin v. ...
FCTD
Brough v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), docket T-630-97
My interpretation of the section is that it provides for trial de novo in the sense that the court is not limited to consideration of evidence that was before the Minister. ...
FCTD
047424 Nb Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), docket T-1143-98
The underlying consideration, in the view of Thurlow, C.J. in Grewal is said to be whether, in the circumstances, "to do justice between the parties calls for the grant of the extension" (at 63 N.R. 110). ...
FCTD
O'Neil v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2003 FCT 550
CONSIDERATION [6] When Dr O'Neil's present motion first came on for hearing it turned out that, through a problem with a courier service, Dr O'Neil had not received the responding motion record filed by the Crown. ...
FCTD
Delaware Nation v. Logan, 2005 FC 1702
The Applicant's burden was to establish that Barton's consideration of the facts was unreasonable. [18] A review of the decision taken, both factor by factor and as a whole, does not establish that decision in whole or its important parts is unreasonable. [19] The Applicant referred the Court to Family Services Perth-Huron v. ...
FCTD
Dort (Estate) v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2005 FC 1201
In such a case, consideration may be given to waiving interest in all or in part for the period from when payments commence until the amounts owing are paid provided the agreed payments are made on time. [25] Mr. ...
FCTD
Williamson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FC 954
While it would qualify the institution for eligibility under the Moveable Properties Grants and Loans program, such eligibility does not arise under the CPEIA and therefore cannot be taken into consideration in terms of statutory interpretation. [22] While the plight of small cultural institutions such as the Society may have been in the Minister's mind when he explained his policy at the time of introduction of the bill, it is not reflected in the wording of the CPEIA. ...
FCTD
1134166 Ontario Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2004 FC 949
The pleas were limited to 4 (four) of the 44 (forty four) counts and, in any event, do not establish that the Plaintiffs have made admissions to the effect that they have evaded duty payable under the Customs Act or anti-dumping duty payable under the SIMA. [20] Moreover, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendant's assertion regarding the availability of an alternative appeal under the SIMA is misleading given the facts in the present case. [21] Therefore, the Plaintiffs are of the view that they have raised a number of difficult and complex issues of fact and law that can only be resolved through a full trial and that Defendant has failed to discharge its onus to establish that the Plaintiffs' Statement of Claim discloses no genuine issues to be tried, all of which should warrant the dismissal of the present motion. [22] It is well established that the test to determine if a motion for summary judgment should be granted is not whether a party cannot possibly succeed at trial, it is whether the case is so doubtful that it does not deserve consideration by the trier of fact at a future trial; (See Granville Shipping Co. v. ...