Search - consideration

At this time, a different recruiting agency, Lannick LRO represented the complainant and submitted his resume to the respondent for consideration. ...

The timeliness of the motion and the parties’ conduct leading up to the amendments are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. [41]   The Court does not subscribe to the Defendants’ view that Lilly engaged in reprehensible or abusive conduct, that it improperly held off proposing its amendments or strategically chose to “lay in the weeds” to gain a tactical advantage from late amendments. ...

I see that as no more than a clerical error. [24]   I now turn to consideration of the various expense claims. ...

(Friedberg): [...] a gift is a voluntary transfer of property owned by a donor to a done in return for which no benefit or consideration flows to the donor (at 6032). [23]   In this case, as previously noted, it is clear that Yellow Point legally granted the Covenant to TLC and NALT on June 6, 2008. ...

At the third step, the state has the opportunity to demonstrate, if it can, that countervailing factors defeat the functional considerations that support a damage award and render damages inappropriate or unjust. ...

Even if that motion was presently under consideration, it is difficult to see how it would be directly relevant to the Trustee’s stay motion. ...

This is no less true on judicial review. [36]   In this regard, “clarity” or a single reasonable outcome may be, in some cases, the result of a deferential review of a statutory interpretation decision, but it cannot be the premise of the exercise. [37]   Lastly, I note that reviewing statutory interpretation decisions may also involve the consideration of binding authority by the decision-maker: Céré v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 221 at paragraphs 36–43; see also Paul Daly, “The Principle of Stare Decisis in Canadian Administrative Law” (2015) 49 RJTUM 757. ...

The evidence supporting the finding is presented as being: annual sales in Canada ($105,000 in 2012; $193,000 in 2013; $255,000 in 2014); labels bearing the DO GHAZAL & Design mark were attached to the products sold in Canada; commercial invoices for shipments of tea from the opponent to Canada between July 29, 2012 and June 13, 2014. [12]   Since was discharged the initial burden on the opponent of showing that the DO GHAZAL & Design trade-mark had become known in Canada sufficiently to negate the distinctiveness of the Mark, the Registrar went on to consider whether there would be confusion between the marks, because 164 must then show that the Mark is adapted to distinguish its goods from those of Akbar. [13]   The Registrar assessed confusion, taking into consideration all of the relevant surrounding circumstances, including the factors listed in section 6(5) of the Act: What to be considered Éléments d’appréciation 6(5) In determining whether trademarks or trade names are confusing, the court or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall have regard to all the surrounding circumstances including 6(5) En décidant si des marques de commerce ou des noms commerciaux créent de la confusion, le tribunal ou le registraire, selon le cas, tient compte de toutes les circonstances de l’espèce, y compris : (a) the inherent distinctiveness of the trademarks or trade names and the extent to which they have become known; a) le caractère distinctif inhérent des marques de commerce ou noms commerciaux, et la mesure dans laquelle ils sont devenus connus; (b) the length of time the trademarks or trade names have been in use; b) la période pendant laquelle les marques de commerce ou noms commerciaux ont été en usage; (c) the nature of the goods, services or business; c) le genre de produits, services ou entreprises; (d) the nature of the trade; and d) la nature du commerce; (e) the degree of resemblance between the trademarks or trade names, including in appearance or sound or in the ideas suggested by them. e) le degré de ressemblance entre les marques de commerce ou les noms commerciaux, notamment dans la présentation ou le son, ou dans les idées qu’ils suggèrent. [14]   Starting with the degree of resemblance, the Registrar acknowledges that the two trade-marks are identical in appearance and sound, as well as in the ideas suggested by the marks. ...

The Queen, 2013 TCC 380 at paragraph 65. [5] Among the matters to be considered are: … c) In determining willful blindness, consideration must be given to the education and experience of the taxpayer. d) To find willful blindness there must be a need or a suspicion for an inquiry. e) Circumstances that would indicate a need for an inquiry prior to filing, or flashing red lights as I called it in the Bhatti decision, include the following: i) the magnitude of the advantage or omission; ii) the blatantness of the false statement and how readily detectable it is; iii) the lack of acknowledgment by the tax preparer who prepared the  return in the return itself; iv) unusual requests made by the tax preparer; v) the tax preparer being previously unknown to the taxpayer; vi) incomprehensible explanations by the tax preparer; vii) whether others engaged the tax preparer or warned against doing so, or the taxpayer himself or herself expresses concern about telling others. f) The final requirement for wilful blindness is that the taxpayer makes no inquiry of the tax preparer to understand the return, nor makes any inquiry of a third party, nor the CRA itself. ...

The $83,000 of revenues represents a significant drop from the revenues in 2017 but is nonetheless much higher than that of all the years prior to 2017. [62]   Going back to the kinds of considerations that Stewart [27] states are relevant: in 2017 the activities are carried on in a way that is businesslike; one cannot describe the eight days producing all those meals in Timmins as a personal activity. [63]   Although it is impossible to know how matters will unfold in terms of future profitability, I have no doubt that what was going on in 2017 was a business, a source of income. [64]   That leaves the question, when did it start? ...