Search - consideration

In determining whether the purchase and sale was a venture in the nature of trade, several factors require consideration. ... The rights and interest of the plaintiff in the aircraft, created by the lease, must have consideration in determining plaintiff’s position in the issue before the Court. ...

It may well be this figure was arrived at solely on calculations and considerations made by Birney. ... Undoubtedly he was more concerned with running this small company than with consideration of financial statements, shareholders’ loan transactions, or tax implications. ...

It has the effect of intruding into a taxpayer's affairs and records, disclosing to third parties the existence of difficulties with the tax authorities (a matter which many people would prefer not to disclose) and injecting the government into the middle of the relationship between a taxpayer and their financial institution. [14]            Given the increased importance of privacy interests and the right of a taxpayer to challenge such actions by CCRA, in proceedings such as this, (if they become aware of such actions) consideration should be given by CCRA to those rights and interests. Consideration should also be given to the corresponding duty to notify a taxpayer when a requisition is issued and to provide some indication of the reasons therefor. [15]            This application, having raised legitimate issues of law, is not one where upon dismissed for other reasons, costs ought to be awarded against the Applicant. ...

Second, the Court may exercise its discretion to address the issue in consideration of the following relevant factors: (a) the Court’s competence to resolve legal disputes rooted in the adversary system; (b) the concern for judicial economy; and (c) the need for the Court to demonstrate a measure of awareness of its proper law-making function. [7]                I agree that there is a lack of live controversy. ... Accordingly, setting aside the waiver cannot possibly serve any practical purposes. [8]                The Applicant argues that the issues in the application involve the consideration of the parameters of the discretion conferred by the Minister by subsection 220(2.1), which reads as follows: (2.1) Where any provision of this Act or a regulation requires a person to file a prescribed form, receipt or other document, or to provide prescribed information, the Minister may waive the requirement, but the person shall provide the document or information at the Minister’s request. [9]                She claims that the exercise of discretion to waive the requirement to keep books and records is an issue that transcends the repealed provisions. ...

It is significantly noted that when the Opinion was rendered by the Minister’s delegate, the Applicant, as a father was absent from his children and wife as he was incarcerated. [10]   It is also noted that the psychologist’s report of 2015 was superseded by the evidence of the Applicant having committed more crimes after the psychologist’s report was written. [11]   It is of primary consideration that the Applicant was deemed inadmissible to Canada for serious criminality due to convictions for possession for the purpose of trafficking and robbery in addition to dangerous driving and attempting to avoid arrest. [12]   Danger to the public implies that a person may reoffend and creates thereby an unacceptable risk danger to the public (Williams v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] 2 FC 646 (CA); reference is also made to Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339). [13]   Subsequent to its review of the evidence in its entirety, the Court through consideration and analysis has reached the conclusion that the Opinion of the Minister was reasonable (Bhoonahesh Ramnanan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 404). ...

He submits that pursuant to subsection 14(1) of the Income Tax Act, upon the disposition of goodwill, the taxpayer was required to add to its income from the business for its 1975 taxation year the amount of $38,905, said amount having been computed as follows: Sale price of goodwill sold in 1975 $141,474.00 Amount payable to taxpayer pursuant to subsection 21(1) of the Income Tax Application Rules (55% of $141,474) 77,810.70 Eligible capital amount pursuant to subsection 14(1) of the Income Tax Act (1/2 of $77,810.70) 38,905.00 Subsection 14(1) of the Income Tax Act reads: (1) Where, as a result of a transaction occurring after 1971, an amount has become payable to a taxpayer in a taxation year in respect of a business carried on or formerly carried on by him and the consideration given by the taxpayer therefor was such that, if any payment had been made by the taxpayer after 1971 for that consideration, the payment would have been an eligible capital expenditure of the taxpayer in respect of the business, there shall be included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year from the business the amount, if any, by which 1/2 of the amount so payable (which 1/2 is hereafter in this section referred to as an “eligible capital amount” in respect of the business) exceeds the taxpayer’s cumulative eligible capital in respect of the business immediately before the amount so payable became payable to the taxpayer. ...

Rather, consideration should be given to the reasons for the delay and whether the applicant has an arguable case. ... As stated in Gerwal at p. 272: The underlying consideration, however, which as it seems to me, must be borne in mind in dealing with any application of this kind, is whether, in the circumstances presented, to do justice between the parties calls for the grant of the extension. ...

The act of taking away a person's property has always been subject to such a salutary restriction so that such an act done by any person will be done fairly. 6 The relevant jurisprudence in the consideration of whether or not a seizure under paragraph 231(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act is an act with some “judicial” element, and not a pure administrative act, is difficult. But, after careful consideration of the authorities in relation to the subject proceedings, and in the light of the said traditional attitude towards seizures and searches, I am of the opinion that the act of seizure under the authority of that subsection has some judicial element, and that this is so even though the subsection does not expressly or impliedly import a duty to afford a hearing, it being sufficient that the official deciding and effecting such a seizure is obliged in doing so to decide questions of law or fact affecting an individual's “rights” and thereby exercises a “judicial” discretion; and that a person purporting to exercise such a power of seizure is therefore under a duty to act fairly (“judicially”) solely within the ambit of authority of that subsection; and that as a consequence any act done by a person purportedly under such authority is subject to review by the Trial Division of this court at least on the issue of want or excess of jurisdiction (which is the relevant issue in these proceedings). ...

The Evidence Under Consideration in the Present Review [15]             There is a limit to the evidence which can be introduced on judicial review as stated in the decision in Chopra v. ... Kassam for consideration in reaching the Decision.   [18]            The Minister’s affiants include Mr. ... Kassam confirmed the nature and extent of his consideration of them as follows: Q: When did you first see this analysis? ...

[See also paragraph [91], first item, of the same decision.] [25]            Moreover, ColasCanada in its reply record to the motion under review and during its oral submissions sought to describe the Minister’s alleged abuse more particularly; that is, the fact that the auditor in charge of the file apparently deliberately and in bad faith disregarded a lot of relevant information provided to the said auditor and to his team by ColasCanada in past months and years. [26]            As specified in paragraph 74 of JP Morgan, the taking into account of irrelevant considerations or the failure to take into account relevant considerations are not elements that are grounds for judicial review in this Court: [74]      At one time, the taking into account of irrelevant considerations and the failure to take into account relevant considerations were nominate grounds of review – if they happened, an abuse of discretion automatically was present. However, over time, calls arose for decision-makers to be given some leeway to determine whether or not a consideration is relevant: see, e.g., Baker, supra at paragraph 55; Dr.  ... Accordingly, the current view is that these are not nominate categories of review, but rather matters falling for consideration under Dunsmuir reasonableness review: see Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. ...