Search - consideration

The Court should not interfere if the Minister did not rely upon irrelevant or extraneous considerations (Barron v. ...

. ·          “excluded production” « production exclue » “excluded production” means a film or video production, of a particular corporation that is a prescribed taxable Canadian corporation, o         (a) in respect of which §          (i) the particular corporation has not filed an application for a certificate of completion before the production’s application deadline, §          (ii) a certificate of completion has not been issued before the production’s certification deadline, §          (iii) where the production is not a treaty co-production, neither the particular corporation nor another prescribed taxable Canadian corporation related to the particular corporation §          (A) is, except to the extent of an interest in the production held by a prescribed taxable Canadian corporation as a co-producer of the production or by a prescribed person, the exclusive worldwide copyright owner in the production for all commercial exploitation purposes for the 25-year period that begins at the earliest time after the production was completed that it is commercially exploitable, and §          (B) controls the initial licensing of commercial exploitation, §          (iv) there is not an agreement in writing, for consideration at fair market value, to have the production shown in Canada within the 2-year period that begins at the earliest time after the production was completed that it is commercially exploitable, §          (A) with a corporation that is a Canadian and is a distributor of film or video productions, or §          (B) with a corporation that holds a broadcasting license issued by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission for television markets, or §          (v) distribution is made in Canada within the 2-year period that begins at the earliest time after the production was completed that it is commercially exploitable by a person that is not a Canadian, or o         (b) that is §          (i) news, current events or public affairs programming, or a programme that includes weather or market reports, §          (ii) a talk show, §          (iii) a production in respect of a game, questionnaire or contest (other than a production directed primarily at minors), §          (iv) a sports event or activity, §          (v) a gala presentation or an awards show, §          (vi) a production that solicits funds, §          (vii) reality television, §          (viii) pornography, §          (ix) advertising, §          (x) a production produced primarily for industrial, corporate or institutional purposes, or §          (xi) a production, other than a documentary, all or substantially all of which consists of stock footage. ·          “producer” « producteur » “producer” means a producer of a film or video production, except that it does not include a person unless the person is the individual who o         (a) controls and is the central decision maker in respect of the production; o         (b) is directly responsible for the acquisition of the production story or screenplay and the development, creative and financial control and exploitation of the production; and o         (c) is identified in the production as being the producer of the production. ·          “remuneration” « rémunération » “remuneration” means remuneration other than an amount determined by reference to profits or revenues. ·          “twinning arrangement” « convention de jumelage » “twinning arrangement” means the pairing of two distinct film or video productions, one of which is a Canadian film or video production and the other of which is a foreign film or video production. ...

So I will grant the withdrawal,…     [14]            The essence of the Court’s concern was that time was taken, without notice to the Respondents, in the consideration of preliminary matters that should have been dealt with by motion heard in advance of a hearing specifically dedicated to the hearing of witnesses and argument on the fundamental issue of the guilt or otherwise of contempt on the part of the Respondents ...

. […]   [49]            There, the Supreme Court considered the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words at issue, the scheme of the act under consideration, the legislative history and evolution of the provisions in issue and the purpose of the legislation ...

  [11] Based on his consideration of ss. 2 and 16(1) of the Regulations, he concluded that the licence itself is the property of the Crown, and not of the holder. ...

If only these sections were taken into consideration, compensation could not be effected after bankruptcy, because bankrupts would no longer be in a position to use their property to pay their debts.  ...

This may involve several considerations, including the specialized knowledge of its decision makers, whether any special procedures or non-judicial means of implementing the Act apply, and whether the tribunal plays a role in policy development.   29           In respect of the specialized knowledge of decision makers, a court can look to a tribunal’s constitutive statute and whether appointees are required to have expert qualifications, or are to be appointed by persons holding such qualifications: see Southam, supra, at para. 51.  ...

Rather, reasons for judgment tend to be framed in terms of the facts of the particular case: analysis often does not proceed much beyond the proposition that whether the "due diligence" defence has been established is to be determined by a consideration of all the circumstances of the case. [23]      In the absence of a developed analytical framework, cases are readily distinguishable on their facts, even when those facts, including the facts in the instant appeal, conform to a recurring general pattern. ...

The standard to be applied is one of reasonable consideration.  But it is clear that the proper approach to applying paragraph 55(1)(c) of the Act requires that one views the transactions as a whole rather than in isolation.  ...

In other words, in today’s language, where the Federal Court has jurisdiction under the ITO-Int’l Terminal Operators test, the Federal Court can decide a constitutional question. [50]            In light of these considerations, what should now be made of the passage in Northern Telecom? ...