Search - consideration

In the appellant’s submission I must (and do) include in this consideration the letter of intent (Exhibit A-2). ...

The authorized capital of the Company is ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY DOLLARS ($120,890.00) divided into ONE THOUSAND (1,000) Preferred Shares with a nominal or par value of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DOLLARS AND EIGHTY-NINE CENTS ($120.89) each and with the following special rights and restrictions attached thereto: (a) The said preferred shares shall not confer the right to vote or attend meetings; (b) the said preferred shares shall not confer the right to dividends or interest; (c) the said preferred shares may be redeemed by the Company by the payment of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DOLLARS AND EIGHTY-NINE CENTS ($120.89) per share.” (7) The Company is also authorized to issue NINE THOUSAND (9,000) Common Shares without nominal or par value and the Capital of the Company shall with respect to those shares be at least equal to the aggregate amount paid to the Company on or for such of those shares as are issued, together with such amounts as may from time to time be added by ordinary resolution to such capital. (8) The maximum price or consideration at or for which the shares without nominal or par value may be sold is ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) each. ...

The Board holds that the interruption, and the treatment of the broadcast signals by the appellant companies, Jarmain Cable TV Limited and London Cable TV Limited, did not attribute to the appellants any specific rights in such broadcast signals, distinguishable from the rights of the customer; and that the appellant companies were in no position as a result of such interruption to “sell or lease” such broadcast signals, as would be required for consideration under the provisions of section 125.1 of the Income Tax Act and the relevant Income Tax Regulations 5201 and 5202. ...

On the balance of probabilities, it appears to me that the appellant, in purchasing the land before any plans were made for the construction of an apartment, and before any consideration was given to the possibility of his financing such a project, did not take the necessary preliminary steps and did not act as a person whose purpose and intention it was to build and operate an apartment building. ...

I cannot, in consideration of all the evidence that has been placed before me today, make the negative finding that it would be incumbent upon me to make under subsection 138A(3) in order to vacate the Minister’s direction. ...

The respondent raises a right of incontestability and bases his contentions on the following points: (a) The insurance policies taken out by Honoré were assigned free of charge and the assignment was not registered in accordance with articles 804 and 806 of the Civil Code; (b) Notice of the assignment, even if it is considered an assignment for valuable consideration, was never served on the insurers and was never registered at the head office of the insurance companies before the death of Honoré Hawey. ...

I think what my learned colleague did in that case was, by the process of elimination and by direct consideration of the specified objects in Class 1, to come to the conclusion that the property that he was concerned with in that case did not fit any of the designations in Class 1 and, therefore, by elimination, fell into the ‘‘catch all” section of Class 8. ...

Counsel for the respondent submitted that “if there is an imbalance in consideration given and the property received and returned, then there is an inference of benefit”; that Lawr did not make an investment since Mr Guthrie, while he knew that their shares were 7% non- cumulative preferred shares, did not know whether they were participating or voting shares or whether they were redeemable at the option of Lawr alone; that the advice received from the professionals was merely to the effect that the best course for Lawr to follow was to get the money out of Canada, and it did not deal with the question of whether or not it was a good investment. ...

Counsel for the respondent stated that facts purporting to diminish the company assets or its earning value were mentioned for the first time in the appellant’s written submission and cannot be taken into consideration by the Board because they were not proven at the hearing. ...

Therefore, the respondent did not act upon an impression or a presumption but after full consideration of all the facts and due deliberation. ...