Search - consideration

Mr Fleming stated that under no circumstances was his client, the appellant, prepared at any time to make a cash sale; that the tax factor was the major consideration; that when Crown Trust Company agreed to buy the land from the appellant and later sold it to the City, it asked him to be its solicitor as well, because he was already thoroughly familiar with the transaction. ... The substance must be ascertained by a consideration of the rights and obligations of the parties to be derived from the consideration of the whole agreement. ...

This amount of $115,369.33 was paid by appellant in the following circumstances: (a) For several years appellant had sold tobacco to Tabacs TransCanada Ltée; (b) These purchases of Tobacco by Tabacs Trans-Canada Ltée prior to 1966 were valued at several hundred thousand dollars; (c) Discovering the poor financial situation of Tabacs Trans-Canada Ltée, and realizing that the latter could not pay for and take delivery of the considerable quantities of tobacco ordered, appellant agreed to act as surety in favour of La Société des Tabacs Québec Inc for the amount of $200,000.00, to enable the latter company to purchase the shares of Tabacs Trans-Canada Ltée; (d) Appellant was neither a shareholder nor had any interest in La Société des Tabacs Québec Inc, nor in Tabacs Trans-Canada Ltée, other than as a supplier of tobacco; (e) In consideration of its surety appellant was assured of retaining Tabacs Trans-Canada Ltée as a customer, and continuing to receive orders for tobacco from the latter; (f) The purpose of this surety was to enable Tabacs Trans-Canada Ltée to make good considerable orders for tobacco placed with appellant; (g) During 1966 appellant was called on to pay the sum of $115,- 369.33 under this surety.” ... In the event of merger or purchase of one company by the other, and mortgaging and pledging of the capital assets of the business to guarantee repayment of the said debt of $200,000, Mr F H Jones shall be a party to the pledge or mortgage deed to act as surety. 8. — In view of the importance of guaranteeing a supply of raw materials to the company Mr Jones undertakes, personally and in his capacity as president and majority shareholder of F H Jones Tobacco Sales Co Ltd, not to dispose of his business directly or indirectly before offering it at book value to the company or its representatives, with at least 90 days’ notice. 9. — Finally, in consideration of the benefits conferred on him and the collateral guarantees furnished by the directors, Mr F H Jones undertakes in respect of each of the directors, namely Messrs Jacques Hurtubise, Jean Hurtubise, Richard Moranville and Maurice Martel, not to hold them responsible for the obligations they have incurred personally in acting as surety for the repayment of the loan of $200,000, undertaking in respect of them to pay personally any monies which might be claimed from them by way of surety. The consideration for appellant is found in paragraph three; it was to increase its tobacco sales considerably. ...

The second is that the lot under consideration will continue to be within the agricultural zone and that its value will decrease to the level of the market for agricultural land. The Bureau cannot presume that the lot under consideration will be either included or excluded. ... The Bureau is accordingly of the view that complainants did not discharge the burden on them to show that the value of the land under consideration was affected by the filing of the provisional plan. ...

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 (i) as consideration or partial consideration for accepting the office or entering into the contract of employment, (ii) aS remuneration or partial remuneration for services as an officer or under the contract of employment, or (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. 5.2. ... The Board therefore concludes that of the three conditions provided for under section 25 to rebut the presumption mentioned above, at least one cannot apply to the case at bar—that of paragraph (i), namely, that the amount received cannot reasonably be regarded as having been received “(i) as consideration or partial consideration for... entering into the contract of employment’’. ...

Counsel for the appellant suggests, among other things, that there were no truly comparable sales available to Mr Eldred on which to base his evaluation of the subject land; that no consideration was given to the proximity of the property to the GO Station, a big factor with respect to the value of the land; that Mr Eldred did not take land sale 2 into account in his report, which is the best comparable and whose price per unit unzoned was $3,560 and that sales 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were properties miles away from the subject property and not valid comparables. ... In an unique situation such as this, where a ‘theoretical’ land/ building value is required, consideration must be given to the costs of permits etc. being a necessary prerequisite to development. ... Where an amount can reasonably be regarded as being in part the consideration for the disposition of any property of a taxpayer and as being in part consideration for something else, the part of the amount that can reasonably be regarded as being the consideration for such disposition shall be deemed to be proceeds of disposition of that property irrespective of the form or legal effect of the contract or agreement; and the person to whom the property was disposed of shall be deemed to have acquired the property at the same part of that amount. ...

In referring to the Ransom case (supra) and what is now paragraph 6(3)(a), appellant’s counsel submitted that, as Mr Justice Noël found in the Ransom case, the sum which the appellant received was not: (i) “as consideration or partial consideration for accepting the office or entering into contract of employment” as the evidence discloses that it had nothing to do with his engagement as an employee; (ii) “as remuneration or partial remuneration for services as officer or under the contract of employment” as the evidence discloses that the appellant was receiving under his service contract the full salary appropriate to his appointment. ... Mr Justice Noël continued: (iii) nor can it be said that the payment received by the appellant was “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”. ...

Counsel for the Minister submitted several facts which, in his view, were very relevant to the determination of the deductibility of the accrued bonus: a resolution was passed after the year-end; Dorman’s salary was adequate within the normal range; any consideration for the bonus was past consideration and, since it was not paid, it was no consideration at all; and the accrued bonus was an isolated act. ... There was, in my opinion, no new contractual obligation or undertaking by the company to pay the bonuses in consideration of McEwen and Robinson continuing their efforts and services. ...

—On January 28, 1965 the appellant purchased Part Lot 15, Plan 99 in the City of Burlington in the Regional Municipality of Halton for a consideration of $36,500 (hereinafter called the “property”). —On June 25, 1973 the appellant sold the property for a total consideration of $475,000 with a mortgage in the amount of $425,000 being taken back by the appellant. ... Findings I see little reason to give consideration to the alternate proposal of the respondent—the “secondary intention’’. ...

An amount received by one person from another (a) during a period while the payee was an officer of, or in the employment of, the payer, or (b) on account or in lieu of payment of, cr 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 office of, or in the employment of, the payer. shall be deemed, for the purposes 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 of legal effect thereof, it cannot reasonably be regarded as having been received (c) as consideration or partial consideration for accepting the office or entering into the contract of employment, (d) as remuneration or partial remuneration for services as an officer or under the contract of employment, or (e) in consideration or partial consideration for a covenant with reference to what the officer or employee is, or is not, to do before or after the termination of the employment. 5. ...

In substance the plan was that Oak Lake would convey to the creditors one apartment building for a stated consideration and the creditors would finish that apartment building—as it was not then fully constructed—and sell it, trusting they would realize enough to pay themselves the amount that was due to them by Oak Lake. ... The “Debtor” and the “Vendor” accept forgiveness of the said indebtedness by the “Creditors” as valid consideration and as payment in full of the balance. of the purchase price. ... All of the creditors except Peninsula, for $1 and other good and valuable consideration, gave to John Nemy an assignment dated May 23, 1969. ...