Search - consideration

By the second contract Beaupré was hired by the company as a consultant for $48,000, paid in monthly amounts over a period of six years commencing April 1, 1964 (that is, $1,000 monthly for two years, and $500 for four years), and in consideration of transfer of the ownership of an automobile— acknowledged value $3,315—which the company undertook to make in favour of Beaupré. ... An amount received by one person from another, (b) on account or in lieu of payment of, or in satisfaction of, an obligation arising out of an agreement made by the payer with the payee immediately prior to, during or immediately after a period that the payee was an officer of, or in the employment of, the payer, shall be deemed, for the purpose of section 5, to be remuneration for the payee’s services rendered as an officer or during the period of employment, unless it is established that, irrespective of when the agreement, if any, under which the amount was received was made or the form or legal effect thereof, it cannot reasonably be regarded as having been received (iii) in consideration or partial consideration for covenant with reference to what the officer or employee is, or is not, to do before or after the termination of the employment. ... The automobile, she added, had not been given to Beaupré in payment for services rendered or to be rendered to the company, or, alternatively, in consideration of an undertaking not to compete with the company on giving up his employment. ...

Subsection 400(3) of the Rules mentions that in exercising its discretion the Court may take into consideration any of a number of factors set out therein. Paragraph 400(3)(o) of the Rules is clear: the preceding list is not exhaustive, and the Court may take other factors into consideration to determine the amount of the costs ... I also take into consideration that the disbursements claimed, for example, the purchase of books and the tax consultant’s fees for the adjustment requests, cannot be claimed by the applicant. ...

By an agreement dated November 29, 1979 (the 'Transfer Agreement') Silver Creek- Cedarwood acquired the Projects in consideration for it assuming the liability of $1,700,500 owing by the vendor to the Defendant. 5. ... Pursuant to the Development Agreement, the Defendant agreed to provide to Silver Creek-Cedarwood initial services described in the table below for the consideration set out therein. ... Pursuant to the Purchase and Development Agreement, the Defendant agreed to provide to the Burnhill Partnership initial services described in the table below for the consideration set out therein.                                                             ...

Grundy, and in accordance with procedures established for consideration of such fairness requests, Ms. ... Estey secured a mortgage in the amount of $232,264 was secured from Toronto Dominion Bank on August 27, 2004. [21] r)           Upon review and consideration of Mr. ... The Minister's decision was reasonable and was a proper exercise of the discretion granted under subsection 220(3.1) of the ITA. [17]            The Minister's decision was made after careful consideration of all of the factors before him and was in accordance with the Guidelines. ...

THE FACTS   [4]        On September 25, 2000, as consideration for a credit line of $277,000, Les Entreprises Camvrac Inc. ... There is no indication in the language of the ITA or the EIA that the “proceeds from” the property held as security are limited to the sums received in cash; the “proceeds from a property” must be construed as including any set-off or benefit received in exchange or in consideration of the property ... While the Supreme Court held, in First Vancouver, that a debtor may validly sell property subject to the deemed trust in the normal course of its business, this was on the assumption that the debtor would receive in consideration an equivalent value on which the trust in favour of the Crown would be carried forward. ...

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. While the subsection of the Income Tax Act that was there under consideration was not that relevant to this matter, the forgoing principles have generally been adopted on judicial review of "fairness" decisions such as the one here before the Court. ... In such a case, consideration may be given to waiving interest in all or in part for the period from when payments commence until the amounts owing are paid provided the agreed payments are made on time.... 10. ...

I am not prepared to quash the Minister's decision on the basis of an inconsequential error. [13]      I turn then to the argument that the Minister took into account irrelevant considerations and ignored relevant considerations. This is based on allegations that the Minister fettered his discretion by blindly following the existing government policy, which had existed since at least 1985, of not allowing the sale of duty and tax free fuel, and that the Minister did not give actual consideration to material provided by the applicant (the KPMG reports). [14]      In June of 1995, an official of Revenue Canada wrote to Dr. ... It states that Revenue Canada had undertaken consultations with six federal departments and agencies having an interest in the matter, such as the International Boundary Commission, in order that the proposals "could be given the fullest possible consideration". ...

Upton-Noot sent a letter to the applicant advising her of his decision and explaining Revenue Canada's position. [22]      Revenue Canada's guidelines for the consideration of applications made under subsection 220(3.1) of the Act (also called "Fairness Requests") are set out in Information Circular 92-2. ... 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. Pratte J. then further stated at paragraph 6:          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 contrary to the evidence. ...

  [10]       Counsel for the respondent vigorously attacked the filing and consideration of that document for various basic and procedural reasons.   ... Consideration of an application for protection shall be as follows: (a) an applicant whose claim to refugee protection has been rejected may present only new evidence that arose after the rejection or was not reasonably available, or that the applicant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection; (b) a hearing may be held if the Minister, on the basis of prescribed factors, is of the opinion that a hearing is required; (c) in the case of an applicant not described in subsection 112(3), consideration shall be on the basis of sections 96 to 98; (d) in the case of an applicant described in subsection 112(3), consideration shall be on the basis of the factors set out in section 97 and (i) in the case of an applicant for protection who is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality, whether they are a danger to the public in Canada, or (ii) in the case of any other applicant, whether the application should be refused because of the nature and severity of acts committed by the applicant or because of the danger that the applicant constitutes to the security of Canada.   114. (1) A decision to allow the application for protection has (a) in the case of an applicant not described in subsection 112(3), the effect of conferring refugee protection; and (b) in the case of an applicant described in subsection 112(3), the effect of staying the removal order with respect to a country or place in respect of which the applicant was determined to be in need of protection ... ORDER             The respondent’s objection to the production and consideration of the report by Ms.  ...

Its application in any case remains a matter of judicial discretion, requiring consideration of all of the circumstances, to determine whether an injustice would result: Danyluk v. ... It is clear that he took into account all of the relevant considerations including whether allowing the amendments would result in an injustice to Apotex ... While there are limits to the deference to be accorded a case management prothonotary’s decisions, his understanding of the background and issues in controversy must be taken as having informed his consideration of the factors for and against allowing the amendments. ...