Search - consideration

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.... ...

Palmquist to Ichi on February 1, 1984, to that effect thus having the potential to eliminate Ichi's anticipated refund to be generated out of its requested amendment to its 1980 and 1981 taxation years thus impacting on Ichi's authorization to use its refund to reduce its shareholder loan for the purpose of providing consideration to the offset which would pay off Mr. ...

Furthermore, the relevant provisions of the Act are unconstitutional in that they are contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [4]                Consequently, and in order to better appreciate the scope and nature of this action, consideration must be given to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act MONEY LAUNDERING ACT [5]                An Act to facilitate combating the laundering of proceeds of crime and combating the financing of terrorist activities, to establish the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada and to amend and repeal certain Acts in consequence, was assented to 29th, June, 2000. ...

  [81]            Finally, in the alternative, he argues if the correct standard of review is unreasonableness, that standard has been met particularly flowing from the fact (1) the 2002 Ruling was erroneously not taken into account because Montreal TSO did not have the complete text of the Ruling (2) it is unreasonable in the circumstance to assimilate a blank space in the original tax return as in effect being a claim for RITC which the taxpayer made barring him from even making a claim in the future because he did not timely object to that blank space (3) the decision-maker took into account irrelevant considerations such as; a) the Directive; b) to issue a Notice of Determination would grant Signalgene a right of appeal; and c) tax planning by Signalgene.               ...

Only where this search proves fruitless must the reviewing court undertake a consideration of the four factors comprising the standard of review analysis ...