Search - consideration

Taking into consideration the $8,700,000 payment and the error in reporting the liability for the designated amounts, the assessment resulted in a total Part VIII tax liability on the part of Scannar for the 1985 taxation year in the amount of $4,405,316.50. ... Ultimately it boils down to a consideration of simple fairness, common sense and the interest that the courts have that justice be done. ... Conclusion All of these considerations lead me to conclude that the proposed amendments regarding the designations would cause an irremediable injustice that could not be compensated by an award of costs. ...

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 Stonehill Development Agreement, the Defendant agreed to provide to the Stonehill Partnership initial services described in the table below for the consideration set out therein. 12. ... 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. ...

The consideration for the land is stated to be $9,775. The description of the land is: part of the NW /4 of 29-6-4, but does not state the acreage of the land being transferred. ... The stated consideration is $345,000, and the land transferred is Section 3-6-4. ... I decided that Mr Caron’s expert evidence should be admitted, but that careful consideration would be given to the question of possible bias, either conscious or unconscious. ...

At page 492 [578, 5017], we read: After giving careful consideration to the argument of counsel for the Minister I cannot accede to the correctness of the proposition upon which his contention is based. ... I am convinced that if the Minister were to study this matter in the light of the provisions of subsection 39(6) the assessment might be varied if the Minister is satisfied that the clause providing for the opiton was in fact put in to safeguard the interests of Cadillac and now he might also take into consideration that there are no business dealings between the two corporations and that it is most unrealistic to say that the option was ever to be exercised as it represented 40 times the earnings of the company. ... The appeal is allowed and the assessment is referred to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment, the whole with costs against plaintiff. 1 "‘-l have deleted parts of the Act where there are.... 2 tin some cases, it is true, the provision containing a “non-arm’s length” clause may, incidentally, operate to relieve a taxpayer of a tax liability to which he would otherwise be subject (eg subsec 85A(5)). 3 *The legislative view, presumably, is that, in the particular class or case, persons not dealing at arm’s length will be tempted to make arrangements that are not dictated by business considerations but by a desire to minimize tax liability; and that such temptation does not exist where the parties are at arm’s length and must therefore heed business considerations ahead of tax considerations. ...

The said subsections as applicable to the 1965 and 1966 taxation years read as follows: 83. (3) An amount that would otherwise be included in computing the income for a taxation year of a person who has, either under an arrangement with the prospector made before the prospecting, exploration or development work or as employer of the prospector, advanced money for, or paid part or all of, the expenses of prospecting or exploring for minerals or of developing a property for minerals, shall not be included in computing his income for the year if it is the consideration for (a) an interest in a mining property acquired under the arrangement under which he made the advance or paid the expenses, or, if the prospector was his employee, acquired by him through the employee’s efforts, or (b) shares of the capital stock of a corporation received by him in consideration for property described in paragraph (a) that he has disposed of to the corporation, unless it is an amount received by him in the year as or on account of a rent, royalty or similar payment. (4) Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) and paragraph (b) of subsection (3) do not apply: (a) in the case of a person who disposes of the shares while or after carrying on a campaign to sell shares of the corporation to the public, or (b) to shares acquired by the exercise of an option to purchase shares received as consideration for property described in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) or paragraph (a) of subsection (3). ... The consideration for said claims was 70,000 “free” shares and 630,000 “escrowed” shares of Kaiser. ... The manner in which the interpretation of section 83 should be approached was discussed by Mr Justice Urie in the case of David T Winchell v MNR, [1974] CTC 177; 74 DTC 6152, where he said at pages 181-2 [6155-6]: It appears clear from a careful reading of section 83 as a whole that its purpose is to encourage development of mineral resources by, inter alia, prospectors, or persons who have financed prospectors, by ensuring they are not taxed upon amounts received in consideration for mining properties which they have prospected, explored or developed. ...

This belief is reinforced by a consideration of the whole tenor of the agreement which throughout requires the appellant “to provide and operate” the facilities, to maintain, repair and keep the facilities in good repair and condition as well as to insure such facilities. ... The payments here were not made apart from the trade or business operations of the appellant but were made as part of them as consideration for providing and operating the pellet facilities. ... The two items of consideration received by the appellant were not as a result of separate and independent bargains but part of the same commercial transaction set up in the manner in which they were for the reasons to which I have previously alluded. ...

As to the second above-named Appellant (hereinafter referred to as New- West): (a) it was incorporated on the 8th day of February 1956; (b) from the date of incorporation to the date hereof it had issued only 100 shares having a par value of $1.00 each for a total consideration of $100.00; (c) 99 of the said 100 shares were at all relevant times owned and registered in the name of Muriel J. ... He was aware of possible income tax advantages in having two companies, and of the lower rate of tax on the first $20,000 of a company’s taxable income and that the rate might be higher if the companies were associated, but he said these were not considerations influencing his decision to in- corporate New-West. ... The union situation was, I am satisfied, one of the considerations in Wosk’s mind and he was aware of advantages that might result in that respect from separate ownerships of the stores. ...

In order to understand the plaintiff’s position, consideration must be given to the following facts: 1. ... The consideration for this payment was not the delivery of the raw materials by Canada Packers.* [2] The most that could be said is that this sum of $500,000 was paid by Longueuil Meat to the agent of Canada Packers Limited in order to induce that company to enter into an agreement under which it would be bound to sell its inedible by-products to City Renderers Limited or its assignee. ... However, in order to make such an argument one would have to disregard completely the transaction now under consideration. ...

In my view, if personal use by an employee is no longer a valid consideration with respect to the applicability of that paragraph so too is the fact that an employee's use of an employer's automobile is restricted. ... That we cannot do. 11 In my view, it is clear from the wording of paragraph 6(1)(e) and its legislative history that the purpose for which the employer's automobile was made available is not a relevant consideration. ... Having regard to these considerations, it is clear to me that Parliament did not intend that the applicability of paragraph 6(1)(e) be dependent on whether an employer had unrestricted or exclusive use of an employer's automobile. ...

Analysis [17] Paragraph 50(1)(b) of the Federal Courts Act, RSC, 1985, c F-7 provides the Court with discretion to stay a proceeding where it is in the interests of justice to do so. [18] As explained in Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC v AstraZeneca Canada Inc, 2011 FCA 312 [Mylan] at paragraph 5, in determining whether to stay its own proceeding, the Court exercises a jurisdiction that is not unlike scheduling or adjourning a matter, where broad discretionary considerations come to bear. ... While there is a public interest consideration to move proceedings forward fairly and with due dispatch, it is qualitatively different from the public interest considerations that apply when the Court forbids another body from doing what Parliament said it can do. [19] Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to stay its own proceeding depends on the factual circumstances, including the length and purpose of the stay and its impact (Mylan at para 5; ArcelorMittal Exploitation minière Canada SENC v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FC 998 at para 19); and is guided by considerations such as securing the just, most expeditious, and least expensive determination of the proceeding on its merits, and whether the requested stay would unfairly prejudice one of the parties (Windsor (City) v Canadian Transit Co, 2016 SCC 54 at para 124; Coote v Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company, 2013 FCA 143 at paras 12-13). [20] This includes balancing the responsibility to ensure that proceedings move forward in an expeditious, timely and fair manner (Clayton v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 1 [Clayton] at para 28) with considerations such as whether it would be premature to proceed with the litigation because another body has jurisdiction over an issue whose determination will have a material impact on the merits of the litigation (Iris Technologies v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2023 FC 188 [Iristel] at paras 34-35). [21] uniQure asserts that a stay should be granted in this case because the claims of the Patent are not yet defined. ...