Search - consideration

The Appellant was interested in assisting RCM in this effort. [8] The agreement between the Appellant and RCM was an oral agreement to the following effect: RCM would pay the Appellant 4% of each engineer’s compensation in consideration for the Appellant suggesting and interviewing potential candidates; the Appellant drafting an agreement between the engineers and RCM; and the Appellant invoicing and facilitating payment from RCM to each engineer. [9] The last two activities were ancillary to the first. [10] The Appellant sourced the engineers from various places, including social events and a website on which engineering jobs were posted. ... The Appellant entered into agreements with the five engineers under which the Appellant placed them with RCM for a specific period of time in consideration for the payment of 4% of the amount of each contract. [18] Our facts are unlike those in Supreme Tractor Services. ...

I can do no better than quote from Justice Lafleur at the end of her reasons in Pietrovito v The Queen: [86] Finally, here are my last comments: no consideration of fairness or equity can be of assistance to the Appellant as this Court is a statutory court. As explained in Odebala ‑ Fregene, supra [2015 TCC 44]: 22 Factoring in the nature of the specialized statutory scheme of the Act and that this Court is a statutory Court, considerations of fairness do not apply. ...

The Minister must take into account all relevant considerations in determining whether to grant taxpayer relief pursuant to the subsection and must base their decision on the purpose of the provision, that of fairness (Canada v Guindon, 2013 FCA 153 at para 58). [19] The CRA has developed administrative guidelines that inform the exercise of the Minister’s discretion. ... These failures, coupled with the automatic reinvestment of the income by RBC, meant that he had no knowledge of the income and no way to mitigate the consequences of its inclusion in income between 2019 and 2022. [25] The Minister’s delegate made no error in focussing their consideration of the Second Request on the importance of Mr. ...

As noted by the FCA in Bowker, “there is no consensus in the field as to the breadth of the range, particularly at the upper end” (para. 19). [18] It may thus be concluded that an award of costs in the range of 50%- 75% is not the norm in this Court and that such an award should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, taking into consideration the fact that “substantial indemnity costs” are defined in subsection 147(3.5) of the Rules as “80% of solicitor-client costs.” [19] In the end, the determination of costs is always discretionary. ... The Court finds that this would be inadequate given its consideration of the two factors noted above. [56] All things considered, the Court concludes that an award at the lower end of the scale or 20% of solicitor-client costs (plus applicable taxes) would be more appropriate. ...

I note that the agent for the appellants asserted that this move of the firm did not affect his observations, and he asserted that he did not take this into consideration (see hearing transcript at page 113). [18] The respondent maintains that to be entitled to the moving expense deduction, it is essential that there be a “ new work location ” and that it be geographically distinct. ... Counsel for the respondent maintained that the appellants’ work responsibilities did not change and that furthermore, the increase in their income can be explained by several factors that are taken into consideration in the remuneration of lawyers who are associates. ...

Such an intention is an important fact, but these cases indicate that it is not conclusive, and it may be outweighed by other considerations. ... These considerations lead me to conclude that the purchase of the property by the appellant and his father was no mere investment looking, as Rand, J., said in Gairdner Securities Ltd. v. ...

Bau: ‘ Le contrat de société exige comme conditions essentielles de sa formation l’intention des parties de s’associer, une chose mise en commun, et la participation aux bénéfices et aux pertes de l’entreprise. ’ ’ ’ Furthermore, in endeavouring to ascertain the true intent and meaning of the type of agreement here in issue consideration, I think, must be given to such additional factors as the language in which it is couched; whether and to what extent mutually shared elements of speculation or risk exist; the extent of inequality, if any, of the authority which it vested in the parties; and the de facto conduct of the parties in giving effect to the agreement. ... The foregoing provisions serve to indicate, I think, that rather than being a partner in the accepted sense of the term, the party of the second part, which, it is admitted, had no financial resources to speak of, who had only skill to offer, accepted a subservient role in consideration of guaranteed payment of services and repayment of all its disbursements, including materials and operating costs, in carrying out the work. ...

The payment of $15,000 is the consideration for that release and nothing else: obviously Mr Linett, in an insolvent state, was making a compromise of his debts by the payment of a lesser amount. ... For the record, all of Exhibit A-2 and paragraph 14(d) of Exhibit A-1 are reproduced: TERMINATION AGREEMENT TERMINATION AGREEMENT (hereinafter called “Agreement”) made at Des Moines, Iowa between HOME READER SERVICE, INC, a Delaware corporation with offices at 111 Tenth Street, Des Moines, Iowa (hereinafter called “HRS”) and Jack Linett d/b/a HOME READER SERVICE OF MONTREAL (hereinafter referred to as “LINETT”) WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, HRS and LINETT entered into a Franchise Agreement dated November 30, 1960, and said Franchise Agreement has been amended from time to time, and, WHEREAS, the parties desire to terminate said Franchise Agreement and all amendments thereto (hereinafter collectively called “Franchise Agreement”), and WHEREAS, LINETT and HRS each desire to waive the sixty (60) day notice requirement set forth in said Franchise Agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms of this AGREEMENT, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1. ...

The appellant stated he would take $1,000 an acre and, as a result, by document dated January 12, 1973, the appellant, for a consideration of $500, granted to McGuigan’s principal an option on all his property valid until July 12, 1973, at a price of $1,000 per acre. ... Some consideration would be given to its proximity to Sale No 17. For these reasons it should not be justified as a basis for comparison. ...

The company, during the currency of their relationship as a company and as a shareholder of the company, has no obligation to him whatsoever with respect to the amount that he paid, his consideration for those shares. ... There would not appear to be constraints placed on a transfer of that kind, including value of the property, or consideration for the transfer. ...