Search - consideration

Justiciability recognizes that the exercise of legislative powers or the conduct of state affairs – including foreign affairs – by the executive branch requires weighing many considerations and making policy choices that should not be assessed by the courts (Environnement Jeunesse at para 30). [59] Justiciability relates to a court’s jurisdiction in the sense that a justiciable issue is one that does not exceed a court’s jurisdiction by encroaching on the exclusive powers of the legislative or executive branches (Ontario v Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario, 2013 SCC 43 at para 30). ...

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. ...

As described by Justice Noël in Brar, the appeal is “robust.” [63] I acknowledge that |||||||||| ’s Charter and constitutional arguments deserve consideration and note that similar issues have been raised before this Court in other proceedings. ...

In the matters under consideration, Mr. Brown found that neither Mr. Hennessey nor Eastern Health “can be considered the deemed employer” (Exhibit P-5).    ... I would say that no consideration would have been given because Mr. Hennessey would have been well aware through his conversations with collections that the idea – one of the reasons an individual account was set up in January 2006 was to facilitate him keeping current with current remittances.  ...

Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada, Second Edition, Butterworths, Toronto and Vancouver, 1999, at paragraph 14.96, page 756, other considerations unique to the adversarial system, such as fairness to the opposite party and consistency of positions, may come into play. But the Court cannot find any such considerations here. [103]        Normally, the essentials of a waiver of a legal right (such as a time limitation or contractual rights) include a conscious intention to relinquish that right (see Saskatchewan River Bungalows Ltd. v. ...

The Officer continued: This means that the participant must first clearly identify the goods (individual or by lot, raw material, part, or product, including quantities) under consideration. ... The Officer has completely missed the mark, and in my view, the Decision falls well short of the transparency, intelligibility and justification requirements of Vavilov, even taking into consideration the context and the history of the exchanges between the parties in respect of the drawback claims found in the record. [52] It seems to me that before the Officer is able to reject a claim for what is in essence a sufficiency issue, he must first engage with the submissions of the claimant. ...

Furthermore, it was satisfied that the punitive damages had been amply justified: [11]   I note, amongst other considerations, the judge’s findings that the defendants were motivated by profit; the vulnerability to, and erosion of, the plaintiffs trade-mark rights arising from counterfeiting and infringement; the defendants’ attempts to mislead the Court; the fraudulent transfer, after the filing of the Statement of Claim, of ownership of the defendants’ company to avoid liability; the defendants’ recidivist conduct in light of previous orders in respect of the same matter; the defendants’ awareness of the unlawful nature of the activity; the scope of the infringement; the sale of infringing articles after filing and service of the Statement of Claim; the defendants’ failure to produce any records; and, the judge’s conclusion that the infringement was continuous and deliberate. ... The level of blameworthiness may be influenced by many factors, but some of the factors noted in a selection of Canadian cases include: (1)   whether the misconduct was planned and deliberate: … (2)   the intent and motive of the defendant: … (3)   whether the defendant persisted in the outrageous conduct over a lengthy period of time: … (4)   whether the defendant concealed or attempted to cover up its misconduct: … (5)   the defendant’s awareness that what he or she was doing was wrong: … (6)   whether the defendant profited from its misconduct: … (7)   whether the interest violated by the misconduct was known to be deeply personal to the plaintiff … [Italics in original and reference to authorities omitted.] [185]   In a case close to our case, the Federal Court of Appeal (Lam Chan Kee, 2017 FCA 38) noted the following factors used to ascertain the blameworthiness where four infringements had been assessed compensatory damages of $64,000 (4 infringements X $8,000 (retail) X 2 plaintiffs): [11]   I note, amongst other considerations, the judge’s findings that the defendants were motivated by profit; the vulnerability to, and erosion of, the plaintiffs trade-mark rights arising from counterfeiting and infringement; the defendants’ attempts to mislead the Court; the fraudulent transfer, after the filing of the Statement of Claim, of ownership of the defendants’ company to avoid liability; the defendants’ recidivist conduct in light of previous orders in respect of the same matter; the defendants’ awareness of the unlawful nature of the activity; the scope of the infringement; the sale of infringing articles after filing and service of the Statement of Claim; the defendants’ failure to produce any records; and, the judge’s conclusion that the infringement was continuous and deliberate. ...

In a globalized world, practical reality, as well as political and economic considerations, will encourage countries to sign tax treaties. [12]            For example, whether a taxpayer can avail itself of a double taxation exception is a matter to be settled between the countries that have entered into a tax treaty. ...

Refusal to complete the transaction would appear to have been prompted by considerations other than difficulty in identifying the land agreed to be sold”. ...

"Reasonable" is a term encompassing both objective and subjective considerations; "expectation", means something more than mere "hope"-perhaps it is closer to "anticipation"; and "profit", is a calculation taking into account the Act and GAAP, with little need for subjectivity in my view.... ...