Search - consideration

Specifically, the Crown argues that the Tax Court erred in holding that the words “consideration given for the property” in subsection 160(1) mean “consideration given by the transferee regardless of who receives that consideration” (supplementary written submissions of the Crown, para. 1, citing Reasons, para. 209). ... According to the Crown, the consideration must “flow to, or for the benefit of, the transferor” (supplementary written submissions of the Crown, para. 1) and since no part of the consideration given by the respondents flowed to or for the benefit of the subsidiaries, it follows that consideration was not validly given for purposes of subsection 160(1). ... Subparagraph 160(1)(e)(i) refers to “consideration given ” rather than “consideration received ”. ...

The irrelevant considerations were: 1.         that it was not the place of the Court to tell the tax appellants how to present their case; and 2.         ... However, I would, at this stage, prefer to leave these considerations to the Trial Judge. [26]            I conclude that, based on relevant considerations, the Motions Judge exercised the discretion conferred upon him under rule 58(1)(a). ... I therefore believe it is the responsibility of a motions judge when faced with such a motion to consider carefully whether there are any relevant facts in dispute which require a full trial. [31]            Having in mind these considerations, it is my respectful view that the motions judge here took into account irrelevant considerations and failed to have regard to relevant considerations in exercising his discretion the way he did. ...

Question 3: What consideration did Toronto Refiners give for the $9 million? [10]            "Consideration" is a legal term that may have different meanings in different contexts. ... The Court was required in that case to determine what consideration was given by the recipient of a payment made to settle the recipient's claim for damages for breach of contract. ...

I will therefore give no further consideration to this ground of appeal ... and (2) Is the value of consideration charged for these several properties or services the same as, or only marginally different from, what the value of the consideration for the particular property or service would be if it were provided alone?   ...   [40]            The second question proposed in the policy statement concerns the value of consideration charged for the principal property or service. ...

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. ...

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. ...

At the very minimum, the Court must take them into consideration when engaged in the process of discerning the meaning and application of the provisions of the Charter. ... In this case the Court is able to limit itself to a consideration of terms and conditions which it finds to not be on arm's length terms and that directly relate to pricing. ... It is also important to note that in McKesson, the Tax Court limited itself “to a consideration of terms and conditions which it finds to not be on arm's length terms and that directly relate to pricing”. ...

The appellant maintains that she did give consideration for the transfer. ... [Emphasis added] [5]      It is clear to us from the record that the fair market value of alleged consideration at the time of transfer, if indeed it had any value, was not established at trial. ... The obligation on the appellant at the trial was to establish the fair market value of any consideration that she gave in exchange for the transfer. ...

Nonetheless, consideration need not be equal to the cost of the good or service for which it is given, and in fact this is rarely the case. ... Consideration obviously does not stop being consideration simply because it exceeds the cost of the service it provides by five percent. [33]            Finally, it is incorrect to say that the Minister of Transport did not receive anything in return for the subsidy. ... In that case, the payment is just as much consideration (Bulletin B-067 at pages 3 and 4). ...