Search - consideration

Rather, the reasons demonstrate that the IAD was simply treating the immigrant investor application as background to its consideration of the sponsorship application. ... By failing to assess his individual circumstances, the IAD reached an unreasonable conclusion on the H&C considerations. [30]   I am not persuaded that the IAD decision is unreasonable. ... It also considers, however, that the Applicants do not have other family members here; that the Principal Applicant had a business and substantial assets in China; and that he and his wife were educated in China and speak the language. [31]   I find that the IAD decision demonstrates a consideration of the individual circumstances of the Applicants, as well as a specific consideration of the situation of the step-son, Jack. ...

In rendering his decision Maurice Boisvert, QC stated at page 418 [917]: There is no doubt that the appellant undertook to pay the periodic Instalments to hold their property in order to assure a place where his wife could live with their child; the undertaking was a consideration to fix the alimony to $40 per month. A consideration is not a decree nor an order of a tribunal. The Court did not order the appellant to pay the amount of $44.27 per month. ... The courts, in fixing the terms of an alimentary allowance order, may properly take into consideration the taxation consequences of same, and if, as a result of this judgment, the net cost to the husband of the payments he was ordered to pay and the net benefits of the receipt of same by the wife, including the occupancy of the house, are less than anticipated after taking the tax consequences into consideration, then an application can be made to the Court making the alimentary order for an increase in same, but this is not a matter for decision in this Court. ...

.: —Upon reading all the affidavits and the other documents filed, upon hearing the testimony given by Raj Vohora, upon considering the particular situation and the nature of this particular case, and upon serious consideration of the arguments presented by counsel for the parties; It being clear that the strict provisions of paragraph 232(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act have not been complied with, and considering that this Court has no discretion to extend the compulsory delay of 14 days stipulated therein; Considering paragraph 232(6)(a) of the Act; This Court Orders that the sheriff of the Judicial District of Winnipeg, Winnipeg Centre, deliver document or documents placed in his custody pursuant to paragraph 232(3)(b) of the Act on May 8, 1987 seized from the offices of Walsh, Micay, Barristers and Solicitors to Brian W. ...

It does appear that the plaintiff did, during 1969, sell two lots for a total consideration of $6,200. ...

., concurring): 1 We have not been persuaded that Sobier J.T.C.C. made any errors in his consideration of this case. 2 In particular, we agree with the following passage in his reasons for decision (Respondent's Application Record, 92): It appears that if they had not chosen to incorporate, they would very likely be entitled to the deduction of these expenses. ...

The factors are: Necessity – a consideration of the extent to which the relief is necessary to protect the plaintiff’s rights. The relief need not be indispensable but the court may consider whether alternative and less onerous measures are available; Effectiveness – a consideration of whether the relief sought will make infringing activities more difficult to achieve and discourage Internet users from accessing the infringing service; Dissuasiveness – a consideration of whether others not currently accessing the infringing service will be dissuaded from doing so; Complexity and Cost – a consideration of the complexity and cost of implementing the relief sought; Barriers to legitimate use or trade – a consideration of whether the relief will create barriers to legitimate use by unduly affecting the ability of users of ISP services to access information lawfully; Fairness – a consideration of whether the relief strikes a fair balance between fundamental rights of the parties, the third parties and the general public; Substitution – a consideration of the extent to which blocked websites may be replaced or substituted and whether a blocked website may be substituted for another infringing website; and Safeguards – a consideration of whether the relief sought includes measures that safeguard against abuse. [53]   The necessity factor is, in my view, closely linked to the irreparable harm branch of the test. ... However, such consideration does not relieve the plaintiffs of the burden of establishing irreparable harm (Bell Canada v. 1326030 Ontario Inc. ...

Are there policy considerations which would negate the creation of a duty of care in the circumstances of the case?   ... As the majority of this Court held in Norsk, at p. 1155, residual policy considerations fall to be considered here.  ... If part one is not met then under part two the court should consider whether there are policy considerations which may give rise to a duty of care ...

The assets, other than inventories, will be sold and transferred to Quatsino as at June 30th, 1960 for a total consideration of $116,212.75, comprising $90,000 for boats, fixtures, logging equipment, etc and $26,212.75 for land and timber. ... On the same date he sold the shares to a third party for a sum substantially in excess of the value attributed to them when he acquired them as part of the consideration for the sale of the hotel. ... While in the present case the assets were not sold to Quatsino for a consideration expressed partially in cash and partially in shares of that company, they were in effect sold to Rayonier for a consideration to be paid in part in cash by Quatsino with funds provided by Rayonier and in part by Rayonier undertaking to buy shares which appellant would subscribe in Quatsino, at a pre-arranged price, greatly in excess of what appellant had paid for them. ...

This leads to consideration of the true policy rationale underscoring the direct-use rule. ... In short, the consideration was adequate or gave rise to a reasonable expectation of profit. ... I turn now to the issue of whether the guarantee in question was given for adequate consideration. ...

The court may intervene and set aside the discretionary decision under review only if that decision was made in bad faith, if its author clearly ignored some relevant facts or took into consideration irrelevant facts or if the decision is contrary to law. The judge’s findings that the Minister failed to inform the respondents of the factors that he would take into consideration in exercising his discretion and that he also failed to give them an opportunity to make representations in support of their requests are both clearly contrary to the evidence. ...