Search - considered

The words of Thorson, P in Cragg v MNR, [1951] CTC 322 at 327: 52 DTC 1005 at 1007, are appropriate in considering this case: There is, I think, no doubt that each of the profits made by the appellant could, by itself, have been properly considered a capital gain and the Court must be careful before it decides that a series of profits, each one of which would by itself have been a capital gain, has become profit or gain from a business. ...

As a matter of fact, the scope of the appellant’s activity became so restricted in 1959 that what was done during the whole of the said taxation year cannot be considered as business operations being carried on outside Canada. ...

It was then considered that:— WHEREAS the Company has made it a practice to pay ‘an annual fee to Mr. ...

Under the circumstances goodwill cannot be considered as an element in the transaction. ...

There is evidence that it had done some small jobs other than house construction, but they were, so far as Mr Bird was concerned, too small to be considered a diversification of the nature he was interested in. ...

I, of course, have not had the opportunity of observing the appellant in the course of giving his evidence, but the impression I have received, from the questions of the presiding member and certain comments made by him during the hearing, is that he was impressed with the manner in which this one and only witness gave his evidence, and that he considered any one, or even all three, of the reasons given by the appellant for purchasing the oil derrick in question plausible under the circumstances. ...

In the event that his interpretation of the concept of selling of property or negotiating of contracts was too restrictive, Miller J. considered the condition set out in subparagraph 8(1)(f)(i). ...

The Court has already considered the Applicants’ arguments that the information should not be protected since it has not been treated as confidential by the Respondent and that it is already in the public domain in the context of Kiss. ...

Events were such that development was delayed, and eventually Sobeys Stores decided, for reasons which in its business judgment it considered prudent and which I cannot hold to have been imprudent, that the lands would not usefully serve Sobeys Stores’ scheme and that the investments should be realized by sale of the lands to parties outside the Sobeys Stores’ organization. ...

Penalty provisions are normally considered as appendant and not governing. ...