Search - considered

Given that a seizure by garnishment is carried out in rem and directly affects the property in question, the private international law rules governing Quebec authorities’ jurisdiction over real actions must be considered. ... Ct.). [30]                          The rules of private international law found in Book Ten of the Civil Code of Québec (“ C.C.Q. ”) must be considered in order to decide this case. ... The moment at which the jurisdiction of the Quebec Superior Court must be considered is when the Writ of Seizure Before Judgment by Garnishment was requested and issued. ...

This development was nevertheless considered insufficient.  In Sidmay Ltd. v. ... The common law doctrine of illegality and its effect on the validity of a contract must also be considered with regard to acts contrary to public policy.  ... He states that the modern approach to illegality recognizes that a contract will not be considered void ab initio simply because it is prohibited.  ...

In the past a tax of this nature has been considered to be an indirect tax. ... In the [Page 565] past a tax of this nature has been considered to be an indirect tax. ... The constitutional validity of that provision was considered by this Court in Amax Potash Ltd. v. ...

The first issue is the same as that which was considered by this Court in the case of Alberta Natural Gas Company v. ...

But the Judge in appeal considered the assessment de novo in all its aspects. ...

Subsections (2) and (8), so far as they need be considered, read: “(2) Where depreciable property did, at any time after the commencement of 1949, belong to a person (hereinafter referred to as the original owner) and has, by one or more transactions between persons not dealing at arm’s length, become vested in a taxpayer, the following rules are, notwithstanding section 17, applicable for the purposes of this section and regulations made under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 11: (a) the capital cost of the property to the taxpayer shall be deemed to be the amount that was the capital cost of the property to the original owner; (b) where the capital cost of the property to the original owner exceeds the actual capital cost of the property to the taxpayer, the excess shall be deemed to have been allowed to the taxpayer in respect of the property under regulations made under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 11 in computing income for taxation years before the acquisition thereof by the taxpayer. (3) In this section and regulations made under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 11, (a) ‘depreciable property of a taxpayer’ as of any time in a taxation year means property in respect of which the taxpayer has been allowed, or is entitled to a deduction under regulations made under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 11 in computing income for that or a previous taxation year.’’ ...

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant could not be considered to be a manufacturer within the meaning of the Act and therefore declined to make the exempting declarations sought. ...

The question of damages alleged to have been suffered by the company as a result of Vocisano’s actions was removed from those matters to be considered by the arbitrators. ...

To regard these payments as purchase price, and therefore as chargeable against capital rather than against revenue, could not, I think, be considered an unreasonable view. ...

We have carefully considered the able judgment of Mr. Justice Carroll (with whom Mr. ...