Search - consideration

., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 357, at p. 373.   83                                The respondent must show that the appellants infringed its “sole right”, in relation to the musical works at issue, to “communicate to the public by telecommunication”.   84                                This will require consideration of two related legal issues:   (i)                Can the appellants claim the protection of the limitation in s. 2.4.(1)(b)?   ... The Privy Council held that Parliament was fully competent to pass legislation with extraterritorial effect (at p. 163):   Once it is found that a particular topic of legislation is among those upon which the Dominion Parliament may competently legislate... their Lordships see no reason to restrict the permitted scope of such legislation by any other consideration than is applicable to the legislation of a fully Sovereign State.   ...

Accordingly, the item Inventories, $3,492.7, is calculated on the basis of costs incurred on “long-term contracts and aerospace programs” amounting to $5,446.5, less the amount of the consideration received, $2,530.7. ... No consideration is received by the customer at the time of the payment before delivery.   43.       ...

As a general statement, it can be said that the cost of an asset is measured by, and is equal to, the cash value of the consideration parted with when acquiring the asset.  ... They do not require a different standard of proof or a specially cogent standard of evidence, merely appropriately careful consideration by the tribunal before it is satisfied of the matter which has to be established.   ...

The Court found at paragraph 52, page 93 of the Book of Authorities: "It is not a question of the Minister or this Court substituting its judgment for what is a reasonable amount to pay, but rather a case of the Minister or the Court coming to the conclusion that no reasonable business man would have contracted to pay such an amount having only the business consideration of the appellant in mind. ... M.N.R., supra, which cited with approval a decision of Justice Cattanach of the Exchequer Court, where he concluded that: "it is not a question of the Minister or this Court substituting its judgment for what is a reasonable amount to pay, but rather a case of the Minister or the Court coming to the conclusion that no reasonable businessman would have contracted to pay such an amount having only the business consideration of the Appellant in mind". [143] In light of that decision, counsel for the Appellant said that since the evidence has shown that other businessmen paid similar amounts as the Appellant here, then the Minister cannot demonstrate that "no reasonable business person would have paid the amounts". ...

Ouellette said that four types of tax avoidance schemes were discovered during the investigation: 1)       cheques were written for the exact amount of the receipt issued by the A.O.L.M. and the donor was reimbursed an amount in cash, most often 80% or 85% of the amount of the receipt; 2)       receipts were sold for 15% or 20% of the amount of the receipt; 3)       cheques were written for 15% or 20% of the amount of the receipt; 4)       receipts were issued for no consideration. [46]      Mr. ... In this case, the evidence is inadmissible, without the court having to take into consideration the criterion whereby the use of such evidence would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. ...

The others do not require elaborate consideration. As to ground no. 4, I cannot agree that the Act infringes upon the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to impose customs and excise duties. ... The mere insertion, by the legislature, of the phrase in section 4 of the Act "a tax in respect of the consumption of such tobacco" is not conclusive but upon consideration it appears to me that the tax is imposed upon the very person it is intended should bear it and who, in the ordinary course, will not be able to pass it on. ...

This gift triggered the application of subsection 75(2) of the ITA, such that all income from the substituted property (dividends on shares held by the appellant in 9163) had to be attributed, for tax purposes, to 9134 (the person who transferred the property without consideration while retaining the right of reversion, as a beneficiary.) [21]          The corporation 9134 then contributed to 9163’s capital by paying, as a contributed surplus, the funds from the dividends it received from Fiducie familiale Louis Pilon. [22]          The corporation 9163 then paid those funds to the appellant as dividends. [23]          The appellant did not have to include those dividends in its income because, under subsection 75(2) of the ITA, 9134 had to include them in its income. ... The Supreme Court made the following comments in Copthorne, in paragraph 91: 91         The consideration of context involves an examination of other sections of the Act, as well as permissible extrinsic aids (Trustco, in paragraph 55). ...

Rather, determining whether a work is “prepared... by or under the direction or control” of the Crown requires consideration only of the identity of the author and the relationship of that author to the Crown. [121]                      There is no question here that the “prepared” prong is not satisfied with respect to the registered or deposited plans of survey. ... The record indicates that accuracy, integrity, and dissemination of the works in question are of great importance to the proper functioning of the land registry system in Ontario. [145]                      All of these considerations support the conclusion that the registered or deposited plans of survey are government works once published by Teranet and/or the Land Registry Office. ...

I prefer to leave consideration of the standard applicable to unlawful interference under s. 24 for another day, when the Court has the benefit of full submissions on the matter. ... On the other hand, the word “ignore” means “not to know, to be ignorant of” or, alternatively, “to refuse to take notice of; not to recognize; to disregard intentionally, leave out of account or consideration, shut ‘one’s eyes to’” (see “ignore” in the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed. 1989), at p. 641). [81]                           According to Robert & Collins: Dictionnaire français‑anglais, anglais‑français (10th ed. 2016), at p. 1548, the English word “ignore” is the equivalent of the French word “ ignorer ”, which means not to know, not to want to know or not to make use of something or, alternatively, to refuse to recognize the existence of or to take notice of something (see also “ ignorer ” in the dictionaries Le Petit Larousse illustré, at p. 598, and Le Petit Robert, at p. 1276). [82]                           That being said, the English version of By‑law R‑036 is unofficial and therefore has no legal effect: it is merely a reference document. [83]                           In addition, s. 8 of the Charter of the French language, CQLR, c.  ...

All issues must be determined by a careful consideration of all the relevant evidence both direct and circumstantial. ... Furthermore, before the shopping centre was built they received an offer to purchase the land, and it was not until 1959, in response to an unsolicited offer, that they sold the company’s shares.Finally, the incorporation of the company was prompted by genuine commercial considerations. ...