Search - consideration

Exhibit R-5 is headed “Full and Final Release” and states in part: IN CONSIDERATION of the payment of the sum of NINETEEN THOUSAND SIXTY THREE DOLLARS AND TWENTY EIGHT CENTS ($19,063.28) inclusive of costs which is directed to my solicitors, Cockburn, Foster, Townsend, Graham & Associates, In Trust. ... AND IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that the terms of this settlement are fully understood, that the amount stated herein is the sole consideration for this release and that the said sum is accepted voluntarily for the purpose of making a full and final compromise, adjustment and settlement of all claims for injuries, losses and damages resulting or to result from the said accident. [8] The final document signed by the Appellant is entitled a “Release, Direction and Authorization” (Exhibit R-6). ...

  [9]              Thus, although it is insufficient in itself to exempt a director, the imposition of such external constraints on a director's exercise of discretion still remains, in my opinion, part of the circumstances that should be taken into consideration when analyzing the standard of reasonable care, diligence and skill ...   [11]         Thus, the impossibility for a director de jure to exercise his or her discretion is part of the circumstances that should be taken into consideration when analyzing the objective standard of reasonable care, diligence and skill ...

Rather, the Act contains both objective elements – embodied in the reasonable person language – and subjective elements – inherent in individual considerations like “skill” and the idea of “comparable circumstances”. ... Focus Is on Efforts to Prevent Failures, Not Attempts to Remedy   [16]          In Buckingham, the Federal Court of Appeal specifically notes that the test under subsections 227.1(3) of the Income Tax Act and 323(3) of the Excise Tax Act requires consideration of a director’s actions undertaken to prevent a failure to remit. ...

The Appellant contended that the work he performed for his company was sufficient consideration. ... It is worded as follows:       325. (1)   Where at any time a person transfers property, either directly or indirectly, by means of a trust or by any other means, to   (a)   the transferor’s spouse or common-law partner or an individual who has since become the transferor’s spouse or common-law partner,   (b)  an individual who was under eighteen years of age, or   (c)   another person with whom the transferor was not dealing at arm’s length,   the transferee and transferor are jointly and severally liable to pay under this Part an amount equal to the lesser of   (d) the amount determined by the formula A- B where   A     is the amount, if any, by which the fair market value of the property at that time exceeds the fair market value at that time of the consideration given by the transferee for the transfer of the property, and   B      is the amount, if any, by which the amount assessed the transferee under subsection 160(2) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the property exceeds the amount paid by the transferor in respect of the amount so assessed, and   (e) the total of all amounts each of which is (i) an amount that the transferor is liable to pay or remit under this Part for the reporting period of the transferor that includes that time or any preceding reporting period of the transferor, or (ii)   interest or penalty for which the transferor is liable as of that time,   but nothing in this subsection limits the liability of the transferor under any provision of this Part.   325(1) La personne qui transfère un bien, directement ou indirectement, par le biais d'une fiducie ou par tout autre moyen, à son époux ou conjoint de fait, ou à un particulier qui l'est devenu depuis, à un particulier de moins de 18 ans ou à une personne avec laquelle elle a un lien de dépendance, est solidairement tenue, avec le cessionnaire, de payer en application de la présente partie le moins élevé des montants suivants:   a)   résultat du calcul suivant:   A- B où : A          représente l'excédent éventuel de la juste valeur marchande du bien au moment du transfert sur la juste valeur marchande, à ce moment, de la contrepartie payée par le cessionnaire pour le transfert du bien,   B          l'excédent éventuel du montant de la cotisation établie à l'égard du cessionnaire en application du paragraphe 160(2) de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu relativement au bien sur la somme payée par le cédant relativement à ce montant;   b)   le total des montants représentant chacun : (i) le montant dont le cédant est redevable en vertu de la présente partie pour sa période de déclaration qui comprend le moment du transfert ou pour ses périodes de déclaration antérieures, (ii)   les intérêts ou les pénalités dont le cédant est redevable à ce moment.   ...

It may provide some interesting background for your consideration as to what approach to follow on the matter that we discussed ... The former kind of issue calls for a discussion of the four Mohan criteria, in contradistinction to considerations of conflict of interest or apprehension of bias. ...

The 7 weeks in 2011 only takes into consideration the weeks during the period in question, which ends on June 10, 2011. ... Bernier during the period of employment took into consideration this work performed outside the period or that the work performed or hours worked outside this period were included in any way in the work during the period of employment, I find that the work performed outside his period of employment is not relevant ...

The Respondent made no comment on these submissions of the Appellant in its response. c) The Importance of the Issues [10]         From a legal perspective, the Appellant argues that the issue in this appeal ‑ the taxation of income earned by aboriginal business and implicitly whether it is exempt or not from taxation- is of national importance and the subject of much consideration by the Supreme Court of Canada over the years, let alone by the lower courts if I may add. ... The Respondent counters that the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions did not provide a basis for exempting the Appellant’s business income from tax and as such rejected the request. [19]         I am in agreement with the Respondent that the connecting factors test requires an analysis of more than just the commercial mainstream argument and accordingly the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision did not, in and of itself, give any reason to abandon the full consideration of the test. ...

(c)            Lot 3                 In December 1998, Lot 3 was sold to the Siblings for "NIL" consideration. ... Ko for "NIL" consideration. [12]          The Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") determined that GST should have been collected by the Partnership on the transfer of Lot 3 to the Siblings and on the transfer of Lot 5 to Mr. and Mrs. ...

In making and confirming the notices of reassessment dated June 22, 2000, the Minister assumed, in particular, the following facts:   (a)        the case arises from an internal investigation of certain employees at the Jonquière Tax Centre who had established a scheme to provide certain persons with fraudulent tax refunds in consideration of a commission based on a percentage of the said refunds;   (b)        on June 5, 1995, the appellant received a total tax refund of $12,260.05 for the 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 taxation years as a result of reassessments dated May 30, 1995;   (c)        that same day, June 5, 1995, the appellant deposited a net amount of $4,260.05 at the Saint-François Xavier Caisse populaire, Rivière-du-Moulin service centre, after withdrawing a cash amount of $8,000;   (d)        the notices of reassessment dated May 30, 1995, for the 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992 taxation years established that the appellant was the father of two children and, among other things, allowed the equivalent-to-married and dependent tax credits in computing non-refundable tax credits;   (e)        the notices of reassessment dated May 30, 1995, for the 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992 taxation years established that the appellant was the father of two children and, among other things, allowed a child tax credit in computing federal credits;   (f)         the notice of reassessment dated May 30, 1995, for the 1993 taxation year established that the appellant was the father of one child and allowed an equivalent-to-married credit in computing non-refundable tax credits;   (g)        the appellant told the Minister's investigators that he was not married and had never had a child during the taxation years in issue;   (h)        the appellant told the Minister's investigators that he had met Mario Boucher at a bar in the region and that he had repaired Mr. ...   [16]    Article 2849 of the Civil Code of Quebec, which appears in the book on evidence, reads as follows:   Presumptions which are not established by law are left to the discretion of the court which shall take only serious, precise and concordant presumptions into consideration. ...

The appellant may adduce facts constituting a prima facie case which remains unanswered; but in considering whether this has been done it is important not to forget, if it be so, that the facts are, in a special degree if not exclusively, within the appellant's cognizance; although this last is a consideration which, for obvious reasons, must not be pressed too far. [29]          I do not read that passage as permitting the Crown to plead anything it likes as an assumption, whether or not it is uniquely within the Crown's knowledge, and expect the taxpayer to disprove it. ... Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (S.A.); ex parte Hooper ((1926) 37 C.L.R. 368 at 373):                 An "assessment" is not a piece of paper: it is an official act or operation; it is the Commissioner's ascertainment, on consideration of all relevant circumstances, including sometimes his own opinion, of the amount of tax chargeable to a given taxpayer. ...