Search - consideration

It provided that starting on May 1, 2005, Aviva would be entitled to require RJCG to dispose in its favour the Class “A” shares it held in the capital stock of Gestion Lagarde (Reasons, para. 13): 7.3 Call on RJCG Shares by CGU CGU shall be entitled to require RJCG to sell on May 1, 2005, and any May 1 thereafter, all but not less than all of its Shares to CGU upon giving six (6) months’ prior notice to RJCG, (which notice may be given six months prior to May 1, 2005), and CGU shall, in such event, purchase such Shares at their Fair Value increased by an amount equal to the following: […] and RJCG shall be obliged to sell such Shares at such purchase price. [13]            At some point before the exercise date, a sum of $400,000 was paid by Aviva in consideration for the right to make some amendments to the Shareholders’ Agreement. ...

Rather, reasons for judgment tend to be framed in terms of the facts of the particular case: analysis often does not proceed much beyond the proposition that whether the "due diligence" defence has been established is to be determined by a consideration of all the circumstances of the case. [23]      In the absence of a developed analytical framework, cases are readily distinguishable on their facts, even when those facts, including the facts in the instant appeal, conform to a recurring general pattern. ...

The standard to be applied is one of reasonable consideration.  But it is clear that the proper approach to applying paragraph 55(1)(c) of the Act requires that one views the transactions as a whole rather than in isolation.  ...

In other words, in today’s language, where the Federal Court has jurisdiction under the ITO-Int’l Terminal Operators test, the Federal Court can decide a constitutional question. [50]            In light of these considerations, what should now be made of the passage in Northern Telecom? ...

Although I have considered them, I need not refer to all of them for I find that the Customs Tariff   provides the most useful indication of the legislator’s intention as to whether coins that have legal tender such as those under consideration are included in the word “goods”. [44]     Pursuant to section 4 of the Customs Tariff: Unless otherwise provided, words and expressions used in this Act and defined in subsection 2(1) of the Customs Act have the same meaning as in that subsection Sauf indication contraire, les termes et expressions utilisés dans la présente loi et définis au paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi sur les douanes s’entendent au sens de ce paragraphe. [45]   Nothing in the Customs Tariff provides otherwise in respect of the word “goods”. ...

In addition, Sexton J.A. said that the distinction between the two types of proceedings constituted an important consideration for a trial judge in determining whether abuse of process and related doctrines should find application in a section 55 action: “courts should be cognisant of the summary nature of NOC proceedings and the fact that no discoveries or live evidence are permissible” (Pfizer Ireland at paragraph 25). [82]   Of great relevance to the determination of this appeal are Sexton J.A.’s remarks, found at paragraph 25 of his reasons in Pfizer Ireland, that because res judicata did not apply to determinations of validity and infringement, made in the context of NOC proceedings, parties were free to commence proceedings seeking the determination of these issues “in other fora.” [83]   The Court’s decision in Pfizer Ireland leaves no doubt, in my respectful opinion, that the commencement of a section 55 action cannot be prevented by reason of a decision made under section 6 of the Former Regulations. ...

And that: if the Court [was] confined to a consideration of the language of the provisions in question, without regard to their underlying rationale, it would seem inevitable that the GAAR would be rendered meaningless [Copthorne, para. 111, citations omitted]. ...

Finally, the appellant criticizes the TCC judge for not having taken into consideration the evidence in the record showing that the appellant’s Canadian customers, to be able to submit an order to the appellant for contact lenses for the treatment or correction of a defect of vision, must have a Prescription because those customers must provide the appellant with specialized biometric information that can normally only be found on a Prescription. [6] For her part, the Minister conceded at the hearing that Section 9 does not go as far as stating that the supplier must absolutely obtain and keep a copy of the Prescription; however, she submits that this provision requires, at the very least, that reasonable evidence be provided of the Prescription’s existence, which, according to the Minister, the appellant failed to do because the evidence that it submitted in this regard was strictly speculative. ...

Canada, 2002 FCA 260, [2003] 1 F.C. 447, this Court made the following comments on the use of Technical Notes: 50   Of course, Technical Notes are not binding on the courts, but they are entitled to consideration. ...