Search - consideration

In any event those considerations are not in argument in this case, and, in my view, the words requiring a person upon whom deemed forfeiture is imposed to be a person in some way “connected with the unlawful importation” indicates that the character of that forfeiture is a fine for the commission of an offence. ... They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations. ... But a consideration of com pellability is set out infra page 24ff. 13 XBartleman v. ...

The same correspondence requested an extension of 60 days until June 15, 2021, to make comprehensive submissions. [21] By letter dated April 14, 2021, CRA advised that it was willing to extend the proposal deadline to May 17, 2021, in order to allow counsel to submit representations or explanations for CRA’s consideration. ... On its face, the first Notice of Application appears to identify possible administrative law concerns about procedural unfairness arising from non-disclosure and an opportunity to be heard. [128] However, considering the first Notice of Application holistically and practically, it is my view that the first Notice of Application suffers from fatal flaws related to all three concerns described by Stratas JA in JP Morgan, at para 66. [129] I begin with consideration of the nature of the proposed judicial review and the remedies requested (which JP Morgan addressed separately but in the present case, are conveniently analyzed together). ... These issues are also all bound up in CRA’s underlying consideration of the facts and evidence that led it to its assessment position in its March 16, 2021, letter that the applicant’s business was involved in a sham and participated in a carousel scheme. ...

On or about January 2, 1973 all of the assets of Fox Canada, except the real property located in Calgary, Alberta were transferred to the Plaintiff in consideration for the Plaintiff assuming all of the obligations of Fox Canada. 7. ...

No doubt with this litigation in mind, and the possibility that statutory reforms may be under consideration, the Council made a request to the Minister of Finance under the Access to Information Act R.S.C. 1985, c. ...

It is in their Lordships’ opinion the failure to observe, or, perhaps it should be said, the deliberate disregard of, facts which can be ascertained and must-have their proper weight ascribed to them, which vitiates the application of the Lifo method to the present case. it is the same consideration which makes it clear that the evidence of expert witnesses, that the Lifo method is a generally acceptable, and in this case the most appropriate, method of accountancy, is not conclusive of the question that the court has to decide. ...

The companies “are amalgamated and are continued as one company” which is the very antithesis of the notion that the amalgamating companies are extinguished or that they continue in a truncated state... [...]The juridical nature of an amalgamation need not be determined by juridical criteria alone, to the exclusion of consideration of the purposes of amalgamation. ...

In the result, HDL negotiated surrender of the outstanding lease effective January 31, 1970 for a consideration of $1 and a management contract with HPL. ...

After the first prayer for relief, the plaintiff inserts in the Statement of Claim a further six paragraphs of facts; and then (f) claims a declaration that in receiving and responding to the 1991 Ruling request, the Minister was acting in a fiduciary capacity, or was acting in a capacity akin to a fiduciary, toward the class of plaintiffs described herein; and (g) a declaration that the Minister breached the said fiduciary duty or fiduciary-like duty in the following respects: (i) by agreeing to issue an Advance Tax Ruling in circumstances where the share exchange had already taken place, and therefore the transaction which was to be the subject of the Ruling was substantially completed, all of which was contrary to established Revenue Canada policy and procedure, which allows for Rulings respecting proposed transactions only; and (ii) by agreeing to issue a Ruling when Revenue Canada believed that the Act did not allow for such a favourable Ruling, or was ambiguous in respect of the proposed transaction; and (iii) by agreeing to issue a Ruling when the applicant therefor was apparently in possession of private information, to wit the 1985 Ruling whereas the only public position ever put out by the Minister was contrary, namely, the 1985 opinion; and (iv) by favouring Protective Trust and Family Trust with a Ruling not equally available to others; (v) by succumbing to pressure by persons outside Revenue Canada and reversing the Department's considered position against a favourable Ruling; (vi) by issuing a Ruling with a private side deal, comprised of the undertaking and waiver thereby allowing a transaction which avoided the intent of the Act; and (vii) by neglecting or refusing to refer the matter to the Anti-Avoidance Committee under the General Anti-Avoidance Rules pursuant to section 245 of the Act, for detailed consideration and analysis in that forum, prior to rendering a decision in response to the Ruling request; and (viii) By processing and approving the Ruling with extraordinary and undue haste, in order to satisfy the schedule of the applicant for the Ruling, and thereby precluding completion of a thorough internal review of all relevant aspects of the matter; and (ix) By issuing an erroneous Ruling in law; and (x) By failing to publish the Ruling forthwith, and by failing to provide all material details of the Ruling when finally publishing same in or about March 1996; and (xi) By failing to take all reasonable steps to protect the tax base and the practical interests of the class of Plaintiffs; and (xii) Such further and other particulars of breach as may become known to the Plaintiff after Discovery. ...

T-3376-74 of the Federal Court record, reported in English at [1975] C.T.C. 580; 75 D.T.C. 5388), Addy, J. stated: All issues must be determined by a careful consideration of all of the relevant evidence both direct and circumstantial. ...

The difference cannot be stated in precise and definite terms, but each case must be determined after all of the relevant factors are taken into consideration, but the foregoing indicates in a general way the essential difference. ...