Search - consideration

We accept that an important consideration in that case was that the Crown had itself established the relevance of the documents sought by disclosing an internal policy memorandum on the subject (Lehigh at para. 41). ...

Thus, he said, he had himself prepared a typewritten letter dated January 4, 1989 transferring to the appellant his claim for $654,000, which the corporation owed as of December 31, 1988, for the sum of one dollar and other considerations [1]. ...

For income tax purposes, the jurisprudence has established that “a gift is a voluntary transfer of property owned by a donor to a donee, in return for which no benefit or consideration flows to the donor.” [19] Tax advantages received from a gift, however, is not normally considered a “benefit” that would vitiate the gift because doing so means charitable donations deductions would be unavailable to donors. [50]   Accordingly, there must be: (1) a voluntary transfer of property by the donor; (2) the donor owned the property immediately prior to the transfer; and (3) the donor did not receive a non-tax benefit from the donation. [51]   Subsequently, the Federal Court of Appeal clarified the third requirement in Friedberg, that anticipation of or expectation of a material benefit by the donor is sufficient to vitiate an otherwise valid gift. [20] The third no-benefit requirement is also expressed as whether the donor had donative intent at the time the donor made the gift. [21] Accordingly, the issue in this appeal is whether the appellant had the donative intent when he made the Payments to Global. ...

MacDonald did not intend to hedge. [72]   The evidence which bears on this point requires consideration of the credit facility which was negotiated with the TD Bank when the Forward Contract was entered into. ...

It is necessary to refer to the deeds of sale of December 31,‘79, and if we take the deed of sale that appears under tab 1 of A-1, excuse me, of 1-1, on page 6 of the deed: "This sale is agreed upon for and in consideration of the sum of $67,500, as a down payment for which and in deduction of which sum the vendor... ...

They are nevertheless the facts on which the Minister based the assessment of the appellant:   [translation] (a)   The facts admitted above; (b)   The appellant has been a registrant for the purposes of Part IX of the ETA since April 28, 1994; (c)   The appellant is an individual who operates a business under the name “Café de l’Apothicaire”; it is an unlicensed diner located at 1106 Beaubien Street East in Montreal that offers table service (approximately 30 seats) and take-out; (d)   The diner offers a variety of beverages and serves breakfast and lunch; (e)   All breakfasts include hash browns, fruit, and coffee, and breakfast is served any time; (f)   The restaurant is open for a total of 62 hours per week; (g)   According to the appellant, the diner is closed on all statutory holidays and for seven to ten days during the holiday season; (h)   The appellant’s fiscal year during the period at issue is the calendar year (January 1 to December 31) and his tax returns are filed quarterly; (i)   The appellant filed his net GST returns quarterly during the period in question, except from January 1 to December 31, 2011, when no tax return was filed; (j)   Several returns were filed a number of days late; (k)   All supplies made by the appellant in the operation of his diner, which is a commercial activity, during the period in question were taxable supplies for which tax, namely the GST, at the prescribed rate on the value of the consideration for the supply was payable by the recipients to the appellant, who was required to collect it; (l)   The business’s accounting is very poor, indeed practically non-existent: for the audit, the appellant provided only a sales book and a payroll journal, both kept manually; (m)   During a surprise visit and during another on-site visit by the auditor (two people were present on each occasion), a bill issued by the sales recording module (hereinafter referred to as an “SRM”) was given to the first person, who paid in cash, but not to the second person, who was only given change, the till having remained open after the first person had paid; (n)   During the on-site visit by the auditor, a waitress, Marie-Pier Lebel, who presented herself as being in charge, to whom the auditor identified himself, grabbed a bundle of 29 Blueline type guest checks and put them in a recycling box; these were subsequently recovered by the auditor; (o)   It was found that of the 29 guest checks, 17 showed an included tax amount that was circled; (p)   The total amount, taxes included, on these 17 guest checks was $436.30, while the recovered guest checks recorded in the SRM totalled $128.57, including taxes; (q)   Moreover, the analysis of the appellant’s tax returns and of the ratios shows that the amounts reported in the tax returns do not match the manual sales book, that there are major variations with regard to the cost of goods sold and a significant discrepancy with respect to the utilities and telecommunications use percentage; (r)   The analysis of the card payment receipts shows that 65% of these payments were not recorded in the SRM; (s)   The analysis of deposits into the bank account of “Café de l’Apothicaire” and the appellant’s bank account raises questions about what became of the cash sales; (t)   A lack of reliability and integrity of data recorded in the cash register was noted; (u)   The analysis of purchases shows that purchases are made in cash and that the amounts of purchases reported in the appellant’s income tax returns do not reflect reality; (v)   The analysis of the wages reported on the appellant’s income tax returns shows average wages paid of between $1.63 and $3.49 per hour of work, which suggests that a portion of the wages is paid in cash and not declared; (w)   Given all these facts, the Minister was justified in reconstructing the total amount of supplies made by the appellant using an indirect or alternative audit method for the period in question in order to reconstruct sales and ensure that all taxes were properly collected and reported; (x)   The Minister’s method involved reconstructing sales from wages, using Statistics Canada’s industry data and, more specifically, data for full-service restaurants, i.e., establishments whose primary activity involves providing food services to customers who order and are served at tables and pay the bill after eating; these establishments may sell liquor, prepare take-out food, operate a bar or provide live entertainment, in addition to serving meals and drinks; (y)   Much of the data used to determine revenue using the wages method comes from information provided by the appellant and Marie-Pier Lebel; (z)   The alternative method used, i.e., reconstructing sales from wages, revealed that there were discrepancies between sales calculated by this method and sales declared by the appellant; (aa)   The total amount of taxable supplies made by the appellant for the period in question, as reconstructed by the Minister, is $885,967.18, or $215,484.74 for the period from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, $238,661.39 for the period from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010, $244,496.41 for the period from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011, and, lastly, $187,324.64 for the period from January 1 to September 30, 2012; (bb)   In calculating his net tax for the period in question, the appellant reported an aggregate amount of collected or collectible GST of $11,221.03, which represents $160,300.42 of taxable supplies; (cc)   According to the reconstructed sales, the appellant should have reported $44,298.36 in collected or collectible GST in his net tax calculation for the period in question; (dd)   The appellant is therefore liable to the Minister for the amount of the adjustments made to his net tax reported for the period in question, plus interest and penalties; (ee)   The appellant is also liable for $3,264.09 of GST that was collected and not remitted. ...

We accept that an important consideration in that case was that the Crown had itself established the relevance of the documents sought by disclosing an internal policy memorandum on the subject (Lehigh at para. 41). ...

The concept of the “primary beneficiary” is useful in such cases because it captures a variety of considerations that may be relevant depending on the facts – the employer’s purpose in providing something to an employee, for example, or the relationship between what has been provided and the employee’s duties or conditions of employment. ...

À moins que le contrat n’ait été conclu en considération de ses qualités personnelles ou que cela ne soit incompatible avec la nature même du contrat, l’entrepreneur ou le prestataire de services peut s’adjoindre un tiers pour l’exécuter; il conserve néanmoins la direction et la responsabilité de l’exécution. 2085.   ...

Finally, the advice must not have had the purpose of furthering unlawful conduct. [68]   On the other hand, litigation privilege requires the party claiming the privilege to establish for each document that litigation was ongoing, or reasonably contemplated, at the time that the document was created and that the dominant purpose of creating the document was for that litigation. [69]   Relevant considerations in determining   whether a document was prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation include the author of the document and the authority upon whose direction the document was prepared; the date on which the document was produced; the identity of the parties to whom the documents were addressed; and the content of the documents. ...