Search - consideration

"(5) The assessment history of the property is set forth in Exhibit 6, showing a decline in land assessment from 1915 of $304,500 to 1936 of $48,370. 1 " (6) The assessor has had considerable experience, he has given consideration of comparative values, and has had the benefit of consultation with the leading realty dealers, members of the Real Estate Board. ... " (7) After consideration of the evidence and a view of the property the Board fixes the assessment at $59,570: divided, land $48,370 and building $11,200.’’ ...

I do not think it is possible to say that in the case under consideration the Refinery was the manufacturing agent of Oils Ltd., but it might be argued that Oils Ltd. was merely the selling agent of the Refinery, and in fact that is one of the contentions here made by the plaintiff. ... Again the Refinery did not produce gasoline of the highest standard; the only evidence on the point goes to show that the gasoline produced by the Refinery was of a third grade or standard, and the Refinery claims that this should always have been taken into consideration in ascertaining the current price, and in making the assessment, of its sales of gasoline. ...

The Wilson Company was also empowered to acquire and operate timberlands, to acquire water rights and privileges, patents, patent rights and concessions, to establish and operate stores and hotels and to carry on a general mercantile business, to acquire and operate boats, ships and other vessels, to manufacture fire and building bricks, to take contracts for mining work of all kinds and to accept as the consideration shares, stocks or other securities of any company, to acquire and operate farming lands, and to acquire, hold, sell and dispose of any securities or investments of all classes and description of any company, corporation or trust. ... These investments were assigned and transferred by the appellant Wilson to the Wilson Company by agreement dated September 8, 1931, the consideration therefor being the allotment to Wilson of 45,000 fully paid shares in the Wilson Company. ...

There is an additional consideration which ought not to be overlooked. ... Whatever considerations may have moved Parliament to enact clause (k) of subsection 1 of section 5 in 1930 and 1932, with reference to agreements to pay an annuitant certain sums during his lifetime, can have no bearing, it seems to me, upon the question as to what are proceeds of life insurance policies paid upon the death of the person insured, as mentioned in clause (b) of section 3. ...

Ryder, [1907] A.C. 420, at 423, 424, said that the justices there were acting " " administratively, for they are exercising a discretion which may depend upon considerations of policy and practical good sense—and they must, of course, act honestly. ... But that was a certiorari proceeding and the Licensing Act under consideration ‘‘expressly leaves” as Lord Loreburn observed, to the discretion of the justices whether they will grant licences or not to persons whom they deem fit and proper persons. ...

If I do not refer to all those cases or to all those arguments it is not to be inferred that I have failed to do so from any disre- gard of those cases and arguments, to all of which I have given consideration. ... It seems to me that the reasoning in that case is applicable to the one under consideration. ...

Then the term "‘depletion’’ is frequently used, and that here has the same meaning as "‘exhaustion’’, as used in sec. 5(a) of the Income War Tax Act, and it has reference to an allowance for the "depletion” of the oil reserves recoverable from the appellant’s oil leases; it is a measure of the annual exhaustion of the mass or source of oil intended for sale, and ordinarily there the chief factor to be taken into consideration is the proportion which the volume of oil exhausted or won in any year, and which becomes stock in hand, bears to the estimated whole volume of oil likely to be recovered in the life time of the oil bearing leases. ... The points in issue seem to have been the subject of careful consideration by the taxing authorities, in respect of matters about which there may well be a variety of opinions. ...

Griffin to say that the appeal in respect of this particular question should be limited to a consideration of the rentals paid and received in 1938 and if he failed on that then the appellant would account for the tax upon the rentals received in 1937. ... The appellant in his income tax returns made in 1936 and in 1937 treated the warehouse rentals as income, and the question of the resale of the warehouse back to the Malkin Company never arose for consideration until November of 1938. ...

It must be kept in mind that there is no question in the present case as to whether the items with which we are presenly concerned are movables or immovables, for by s. 361, para. 3, it is provided as follows: "‘Immovable property shall also comprise all pipes, poles, wires, rails, tunnels, conduits and other constructions and apparatus of every nature used to produce or distribute for public use, motive power, light, heat, water, electricity or for traction purposes, constructed or placed on, over or under property, streets, highways, or elsewhere within the limits of the City, or for conveying or receiving telegraph, telephone or pneumatic messages. ”’ No doubt the City is authorized to impose taxes for certain purposes upon immovable property including such as is now under consideration, but when we turn to the power of the City to impose a tax to be ealled the "‘business’’ tax, the authorization conferred is not an authorization to impose a tax on all immovables but is restricted to a tax upon premises occupied for certain purposes and "‘in which’’ the business is carried on. ... On the whole, I reach the conclusion that the expression "‘premises in which’’ is not sufficiently clear and unambiguous as to warrant its extension so as to include equipment. of the nature now under consideration within its terms, and as a consequence the inclusion of these poles, wires, conduits and station equipment in the defendant’s tax roll for the purpose of assessing’ a business tax thereon is illegal and ultra vires. ...

But, in order that the Company may be exempt from paying the taxes claimed by the City in the case now under consideration, it is not necessary that it should be either ‘‘an instrumentality of the Government, or an emanation of the Crown’’. ... Moreover, with due respect, the Regina judgment, although entitled to great consideration, cannot be looked upon as an authority in this Court. ...