Search - consideration

Although I have considered them, I need not refer to all of them for I find that the Customs Tariff   provides the most useful indication of the legislator’s intention as to whether coins that have legal tender such as those under consideration are included in the word “goods”. [44]     Pursuant to section 4 of the Customs Tariff: Unless otherwise provided, words and expressions used in this Act and defined in subsection 2(1) of the Customs Act have the same meaning as in that subsection Sauf indication contraire, les termes et expressions utilisés dans la présente loi et définis au paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi sur les douanes s’entendent au sens de ce paragraphe. [45]   Nothing in the Customs Tariff provides otherwise in respect of the word “goods”. ...

Corning says it was an error for the Commissioner to refer to these issues as “general design considerations” applicable to any module, without citing prior art references describing how a skilled person would design a fiber splitter module, or indicating that these are obvious issues. [77]   Corning stated that, at the hearing, the Examiner admitted that it would be unusual for a designer to make an acceptable working system on the first attempt, and would first have to build prototypes and conduct tests. ...

Rather, he intends to make the patents available to others, presumably in consideration of a royalty or some other form of compensation. ...

However, paragraph 241(3) (b) clearly allows for the production of evidence in “any legal proceedings relating to the administration or enforcement of” the  Act. [27] Accordingly, while the privacy of tax information is, of course, an important consideration, section 241 has no direct application here. [28] The general rule is that, where a document is relevant, it will have to be produced in its entirety. ...

In addition, Sexton J.A. said that the distinction between the two types of proceedings constituted an important consideration for a trial judge in determining whether abuse of process and related doctrines should find application in a section 55 action: “courts should be cognisant of the summary nature of NOC proceedings and the fact that no discoveries or live evidence are permissible” (Pfizer Ireland at paragraph 25). [82]   Of great relevance to the determination of this appeal are Sexton J.A.’s remarks, found at paragraph 25 of his reasons in Pfizer Ireland, that because res judicata did not apply to determinations of validity and infringement, made in the context of NOC proceedings, parties were free to commence proceedings seeking the determination of these issues “in other fora.” [83]   The Court’s decision in Pfizer Ireland leaves no doubt, in my respectful opinion, that the commencement of a section 55 action cannot be prevented by reason of a decision made under section 6 of the Former Regulations. ...

That context also is a relevant consideration in deciding the appropriate deadline for filing a reply. [80]   In the income tax context, where a taxpayer elects that an appeal from a reassessment be governed by the informal procedure rules, but the Attorney General applies to have the proceeding governed by the GP Rules, a reply to the notice of appeal is not required until after the Court decides which procedure applies. [50] Where the application is dismissed, the reply must be filed on or before the later of the 60th day after the notice of appeal is transmitted to the Minister (i.e., the limitation that would otherwise apply) and thirty days after the day the written judgment dismissing the application is received by the Minister from the Registry. [51] Thus, where an application is made to bump-up an income tax appeal from the informal procedure to the general procedure, the respondent would have at least 30 days following the Court’s decision to file a reply, even where the informal rules continue to apply. [81]   When the bump-up application is allowed, the respondent has 60 days from service of the notice of appeal, because under the GP Rules service of the notice of appeal starts the time period for filing the reply. ...

. … … (4) In deciding whether to allow an application, the Division must consider any relevant factors, including (4) Pour décider si elle accueille ou non la demande, la Section prend en considération tout élément pertinent, notamment: (a) the document’s relevance and probative value; a) la pertinence et la valeur probante du document; (b) any new evidence the document brings to the appeal; and b) toute nouvelle preuve que le document apporte à l’appel; (c) whether the person who is the subject of the appeal, with reasonable effort, could have provided the document or written submissions with the appellant’s record, respondent’s record or reply record. c) la possibilité qu’aurait eue la personne en cause, en faisant des efforts raisonnables, de transmettre le document ou les observations écrites avec le dossier de l’appelant, le dossier de l’intimé ou le dossier de réplique.   171 In the case of a proceeding of the Refugee Appeal Division, 171 S’agissant de la Section d’appel des réfugiés: … … (a.3) the Division may receive and base a decision on evidence that is adduced in the proceedings and considered credible or trustworthy in the circumstances; a.3) elle peut recevoir les éléments de preuve qu’elle juge crédibles ou dignes de foi en l’occurrence et fonder sur eux sa décision; [34]   The RAD and may confirm or substitute the RPD decision, or refer the matter back for re-determination: IRPA s 111(1). 111 (1) After considering the appeal, the Refugee Appeal Division shall make one of the following decisions: 111 (1) La Section d’appel des réfugiés confirme la décision attaquée, casse la décision et y substitue la décision qui aurait dû être rendue ou renvoie, conformément à ses instructions, l’affaire à la Section de la protection des réfugiés. ...

Wood on behalf of SG Marketing but were not taken into consideration. ...

And that: if the Court [was] confined to a consideration of the language of the provisions in question, without regard to their underlying rationale, it would seem inevitable that the GAAR would be rendered meaningless [Copthorne, para. 111, citations omitted]. ...

Judicial review or other consideration of the manner in which the Minister exercises her discretion is not within the jurisdiction of this Court. [17] Given that lack of jurisdiction, there is no point in considering in these Reasons whether an application for a rental property rebate is a return or information for the purposes of subsection 281(1) of the ETA. [19]   While the tragic and untimely death of Mr. ...