Search - consideration

Merck]) [34]   Although this consideration speaks to corporate offenders, which the Respondents are not, premeditation and deliberation are relevant for the purpose of this sentencing. [35]   In this case, the conduct does not appear to have been entirely premeditated; in my view, the Respondents made wrong choices when faced with pressure from a crowd at the meeting. ...

Corning says it was an error for the Commissioner to refer to these issues as “general design considerations” applicable to any module, without citing prior art references describing how a skilled person would design a fiber splitter module, or indicating that these are obvious issues. [77]   Corning stated that, at the hearing, the Examiner admitted that it would be unusual for a designer to make an acceptable working system on the first attempt, and would first have to build prototypes and conduct tests. ...

. … … (4) In deciding whether to allow an application, the Division must consider any relevant factors, including (4) Pour décider si elle accueille ou non la demande, la Section prend en considération tout élément pertinent, notamment: (a) the document’s relevance and probative value; a) la pertinence et la valeur probante du document; (b) any new evidence the document brings to the appeal; and b) toute nouvelle preuve que le document apporte à l’appel; (c) whether the person who is the subject of the appeal, with reasonable effort, could have provided the document or written submissions with the appellant’s record, respondent’s record or reply record. c) la possibilité qu’aurait eue la personne en cause, en faisant des efforts raisonnables, de transmettre le document ou les observations écrites avec le dossier de l’appelant, le dossier de l’intimé ou le dossier de réplique.   171 In the case of a proceeding of the Refugee Appeal Division, 171 S’agissant de la Section d’appel des réfugiés: … … (a.3) the Division may receive and base a decision on evidence that is adduced in the proceedings and considered credible or trustworthy in the circumstances; a.3) elle peut recevoir les éléments de preuve qu’elle juge crédibles ou dignes de foi en l’occurrence et fonder sur eux sa décision; [34]   The RAD and may confirm or substitute the RPD decision, or refer the matter back for re-determination: IRPA s 111(1). 111 (1) After considering the appeal, the Refugee Appeal Division shall make one of the following decisions: 111 (1) La Section d’appel des réfugiés confirme la décision attaquée, casse la décision et y substitue la décision qui aurait dû être rendue ou renvoie, conformément à ses instructions, l’affaire à la Section de la protection des réfugiés. ...

Counsel submits that the liability for the tax is imposed by section 27 of the Excise Tax Act. 27. (1) There shall be imposed, levied and collected a consumption or sales tax at the rate specified in subsection (1.1) on the sale price of all goods (a) produced or manufactured in Canada (i) payable, in any case other than a case mentioned in subparagraph (ii) or (iii), by the producer or manufacturer at the time when the goods are delivered to the purchaser or at the time when the property in the goods passes, whichever is the earlier, (ii) payable, in a case where the contract for the sale of the goods (including a hire-purchase contract and any other contract under which property in the goods passes upon satisfaction of a condition) provides that the sale price or other consideration shall be paid to the manufacturer or producer by instalments (whether the contract provides that the goods are to be delivered or property in the goods is to pass before or after payment of any or all instalments), by the producer or manufacturer pro tanto at the time each of the instalments becomes payable in accordance with the terms of the contract, and (iii) payable, in a case where the goods are for use by the producer or manufacturer thereof, by the producer or manufacturer at the time the goods are appropriated for use; This section deals with a service. ...

The consideration which a court must give to these documents must necessarily be in the context of the basic dispute between the parties, namely that on the one hand, the plaintiffs were entitled to deduct their advance royalty payment of $20,000 for each licensed territory and on the other, that the Crown has decided that they were not. ...

Consideration of the surrounding circumstances recognizes that ascertaining contractual intention can be difficult when looking at words on their own, because words alone do not have an immutable or absolute meaning: No contracts are made in a vacuum: there is always a setting in which they have to be placed.... ...

Simply because the CITT declined to consider the issue of “reason to believe” in the context of “value for duty” in an earlier instance, does not mean the CITT going forward has foreclosed consideration of issues like those raised here by MoC. [52] As the Federal Court of Appeal has opined in the past, “[t]he function of the CITT as both an adjudicator of disputes and an instrument in the development of trade and import policy suggests that the Parliament intends and expects the CITT to take into account, even in appeals under section 68 of the Customs Act, policy questions that are not appropriate for ordinary judicial appeals”: Deputy Canada (Minister of National Revenue) v Yves Ponroy Canada, 2000 CanLII 15801 (FCA) at para 33. [53] To paraphrase (now) Associate Judge Milczynski, MoC seemingly is at an early stage of the Act ’s adjudicative process. ...

The taxpayer, in his pleadings, alleges the July 10, 1964 documents are against public policy and public morality and “void of legal effect by reason of illegality of consideration and by reason of undue influence and duress”. ...

Finally, a broader consideration moves me to the conclusion to which I would come. ...

As was stated in Cameco at para 41, “whether questions posed in the course of an audit might have direct or collateral consequences on ongoing or prospective litigation is not a relevant discretionary consideration.” [92] Justice Rowe of the Supreme Court of Canada, writing for the majority in Law Society of Saskatchewan v Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29, states at para 36 that the primary focus of the doctrine of abuse of process in the context of administrative law is “the integrity of the courts’ adjudicative functions, and less on the interest of the parties […] The proper administration of justice and ensuring fairness are central to the doctrine […] It aims to prevent unfairness by precluding ‘abuse of the decision-making process.’” [93] In this case, the Minister acted within the powers conferred to her by the ITA. ...