Search - consideration

What Services were Provided for the Consideration Received? [24] At this stage of the analysis, the task of the Court should be to determine what goods and/or services were supplied by MedSleep for the consideration received. ... [105] Paragraph (b) of the definition of the term “recipient” provides that where paragraph (a) does not apply and consideration is payable for the supply, the recipient is the person who is liable to pay that consideration. ... There is consideration payable to MedSleep for such supply. There are two forms of such consideration. ...

The only consideration that Kathryn Marino gave for the shares was time spent with the Company. ... He agreed that the wife paid no consideration to the company for the proceeds of the sale of the Company’s property. ... Further, with respect to the matter of consideration, even if there were no asset in the company the husband taxpayer received the total value of the company’s interest and therefore that was his consideration. ...

[15] The first step is to determine what goods and/or services were provided for the consideration received. ... Consideration [224] In ordinary usage, the term “gift certificate” would describe a device that was issued for consideration. ... Section 181.2 denies its beneficial tax treatment to a device if the device is not issued for consideration, but it does not require a device to have been issued for consideration for it to be a gift certificate. [227] In addition, section 181.2 only says that there has to be consideration. ...

We presented the adjustments to the IRS for their consideration to provide relief. ... Subsection 169(2.2) itself is “ for greater certainty ” and does not mean that consideration only passes if there is a written waiver. [118]    The consideration from the CCA is the agreement to implement the competent authority settlement if the Appellant concurs. ... (“Compass”) request for competent authority consideration for the taxable year ended February 28, 2002- February 28, 2007. ...

The same lack of clarity and precision exists in the French version. [12]         However, on the facts of this case, the significance of there not being a comma does not affect the consideration of the argument of the Appellant’s representative that a placement or employment agency only describes a business that is paid a fee by the worker. ... This happened very rarely. [47]         The worker was required to have access to a computer or fax to deliver an invoice of her hours to Wholistic on a twice‑monthly basis. [48]         On balance, these sorts of tool‑related considerations are often not very helpful in determining whether or not a worker is an employee. ... Profit and Loss/Financial Considerations [49]         The worker’s hourly rate of pay was set at $16 in the agreement, an amount that was acceptable to Wholistic and her. ...

The public interest also permeates the considerations discussed at paragraph 33 above. [47] The public interest in fostering compliance with court orders provides a strong rationale for the “customary practice in contempt cases to impose costs on a solicitor-client basis”: Lari, at para 38; see also the additional jurisprudence cited at paragraph 16 above. [48] This consideration weighs in favour of awarding the Plaintiffs their full costs, less the adjustments discussed above. ... The parties’ conduct during the proceedings [49] The Plaintiffs submit that the Court should take into consideration the fact that Antonio’s counsel (Mr. ... Other considerations [57] Antonio underscores that he did not know what the Plaintiffs would claim in legal fees and disbursements at the time he was required to file his submissions on costs. ...

Other Considerations [39]         A limited number of clients could charge their cab fare and would provide some sort of voucher for the ride. When this happened the worker would be paid his 40% share as if the voucher was a cash receipt and the appellant was the one who had to wait until the charge was actually paid to the customer. [40]         There was no evidence that the worker hired anyone to replace him. [41]         Both of these considerations point away from self‑employment. ...

All of which remain in issue and form “the factual crux” of the case. [43]          The existence of factual disputes does not preclude the granting of a Rule 58 motion, however, this remains a relevant consideration to a Court’s consideration as to whether a determination of a proposed question may substantially shorten the hearing or save costs. [39] [44]          In McIntyre, HSBC and Suncor, the Court held in each instance that there should never be a dispute as to a material fact underpinning a question of law. [40] In addition to the above disputed material facts, the respondent denies the facts in paragraphs 20 to 28 of Lehigh’s pleading which were pled by Lehigh in support of its position that technological advancement was sought and achieved and technological uncertainty existed. ... Other considerations and the circumstances [47]          The repetitive and permissive language in Rule 58 confirms that the motions judge is not limited to considering only the statutory conditions in subsections 58(1) and (2) of the Rules. [41] The motions judge has the discretion to consider other factors, together with all the circumstances of the case, in order to decide whether the proposed question is appropriate for a Rule 58 determination. [42] [48]          In Banque National, former Chief Justice Bowman considered a motion that was based on a previous iteration of Rule 58. ...

A rule which bars an entire class of persons from certain forms of employment, solely on the grounds of a lack of citizenship status and without consideration of educational and professional qualifications or the other attributes or merits of individuals in the group, would, in my view, infringe s. 15 equality rights. ... It cannot consider the transportation division of Petro Canada as a separate entity, and therefore cannot conclude that the appellant's employer was a person whose principal business was passenger, goods, or passenger and goods transport, within the meaning of paragraph 8(1)(g) of the Act. 50 The appellant's appeal would therefore be dismissed if the argument with respect to the Charter was not considered. 4.04 Decision with respect to paragraph 8(1)(g) of the Act taking into consideration the Charter 51 4.04.1 The respondent argued that paragraph 8(1)(g) of the Act does not distinguish on the basis of the appellant's personal characteristics but on the nature of the employer's business (4.02.2 (b)). 52 The overall position of counsel for the appellant can be summarized as follows: The appellant is an employee of a company, one of the activities of which is goods transport, but said activity is not the principal business of the company. 53 The appellant is not the only person in that situation in Canada. ...