Search - considered

The Minister does not seek to have the affidavit struck under Rule 81 but rather to have the Court drawn an adverse inference from EEIGI’s failure to provide an affidavit sworn by the associate lawyer who is purported to have knowledge of the information sharing that is the subject of the Respondent’s Affidavit. [19]   At the hearing, I asked the Minister’s counsel to identify whether there were particular components of the evidence contained in the Respondent’s Affidavit, relevant to the disputed issue of the notice provision sought by EEIGI, that the Minister considered should be afforded little weight.   ... However, for the sake of good order, I confirm that I have considered and am satisfied that the Minister has met these requirements. [24]   As explained by the Federal Court of Appeal in Minister of National Revenue v Lee, 2016 FCA 53 at para 6 (in the context of the equivalent provision of the ITA), the Court must be satisfied that: the person against whom the order is sought was required under the applicable statutory provisions (in the ETA, s 288 or 289) to provide the access, assistance, information or documents sought by the Minister; although the person was required to provide the information or documents sought by the Minister, he or she did not do so; and the documents or information sought is not protected from disclosure by solicitor-client privilege as defined within the statute. [25]   Based upon the Minister’s affidavit evidence and written submissions, I am satisfied that these requirements are met. ... Moreover, in Tomchin v Canada, 2015 FC 402, which considered arguments under ss 7 and 13 of the Charter related to protection against self-incrimination, Justice Manson relied on Jarvis in concluding that such protection constrains only the use that may be made of compelled information in a subsequent proceeding against the person concerned, not the collection and sharing of that information (at para 27). [33]   The Minister also submits that EEIGI is raising hypothetical Charter arguments in the context of speculative concerns about dissemination and use of the Required Information. ...

In the alternative, the Minister argues that the Second Relief Motion is an abuse of process. [22] The Applicant submits that the doctrine of issue estoppel does not apply because the 10‑month estimate for the audit given by the Minister and considered by the FCA has now elapsed. ... The parties agreed that the motion would be considered at the hearing of the Second Relief Motion. [33] The parties proposed an exchange of affidavits in the Second Relief Motion on or before October 30, 2020. ... I find that an advance motion and ruling would not have allowed the application to move forward in a timely manner. [39] Leaving aside for the moment the Ainsworth material, I reviewed each of the paragraphs identified by the Minister and considered whether they should be struck from Mr. ...

Judgment under appeal [12] Justice D’Auray considered that she had to determine whether the interest and the GST late-filing penalty imposed on the respondent on October 30, 2015, should be calculated on the total amount of the GST payable, as the Minister did, or on the difference between the total amount and the amount of GST rebates to which the respondent was entitled. [13] From the outset, Justice D’Auray noted that, pursuant to subsection 191(3) of the Act, the respondent had to self-assess for the GST payable on the “sale” of the reconstructed complex, a sale that the respondent was deemed to have carried out on its own as a “builder” within the meaning of subsection 123(1) of the Act. Noting that the respondent was not a GST registrant and that, therefore, unlike registered businesses, it could not claim input tax credits (ITCs) for the GST paid to its suppliers, Justice D’Auray considered that Parliament wanted to remedy this fiscal imbalance for non-registrants, like the respondent deemed to have made a taxable supply of a complex, by instituting the rebate mechanism provided for in subsections 256.2(3) and 257(1) of the Act. [14] Justice D’Auray further stated that, in connection with the taxable supply of the new complex, the respondent was entitled to two types of rebates by way of this mechanism. ... The Supreme Court of Canada considered this provision in United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. v. ...

London, Ontario Having considered the evidence, the circumstances, and the report submitted under section 162 of the Customs Act in the above matter, it is my decision that: (a) that the value of the goods imported by Amway of Canada Ltd. in the amount of $148,018,478.48 has been forfeited to The Queen; (b) that the amount of $42,783,669.77 of the forfeiture is remitted, leaving the amount of $105,234,808.71 of the forfeiture unremitted. ... I have considered and weighed the evidence, the representations received and all the circumstances of this case and it is my opinion that a forfeiture has been incurred as alleged.... ... In my opinion, since the 1980 claims were for both forfeiture and for duties and taxes and since there was no longer any liability for duties and taxes after the settlement and payment of the $45,000,000, it follows that part of the settlement must be considered as being in payment of duties and taxes. ...

.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. granted (March 30,1995), Doc. 24439 stands for the proposition that words of a Statute should be read in the larger context, the scheme must be considered as a whole taking into account the intent of the legislation, its objects and what it actually accomplishes. ... These submissions have also been considered by the Court. Analysis and decision The Court agrees with counsel that the heart of this case is whether or not the Minister was entitled to assess the appellant company for unremitted deductions made for fishermen in the absence of the execution and filing by the fishermen of a requisite form. ... M.N.R., case, supra, the Court considered the missing signatures as important. ...

Brossard J.A. nevertheless considered the appellants’ argument that they were the alter ego of the public establishments for whose benefit they act and that, as such, they should therefore be able to claim the same tax exemptions as the latter. ... Issues To determine whether the Regional Council and the Buanderie may respectively benefit from the tax exemptions provided for in subsections 204(14) and 236(1.1) of the AMT with respect to real estate tax and business tax the following two questions must be considered: 1. ... Two points must be considered in order to answer these questions. First, the direct action in nullity brought pursuant to article 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q., c. ...

He did not agree with the concept of a perceived windfall since in his view that concept ignored the effect of the tax on market prices, and he considered the tax paid in excess of that calculated on the determined value would merely be a recovery of foregone profits. ... Thus, it is urged that even if the annual letters from Excise to the plaintiff about the method to be followed in calculating the tax and the publications of Excise are considered as representations of the tax to be applied, the plaintiff has no claim to recover where tax paid is in accord with the statute. ... Even if it could be considered that the Crown here received a benefit, that was not at the expense or deprivation of the plaintiff. ...

Counsel was told that CRA would be withdrawing the certificate and writ for both Applicants “as the debt is now considered to be certified in error.” [28] On January 29, 2019, withdrawals of the certificates against the Applicants were filed with the Court. ... It is a robust form of review: Vavilov at para 13. [43] A decision is considered reasonable where it is justified in relation to the facts and law constraining the decision-maker and is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis. ... [116] A legitimate expectation arises under specific circumstances. [117] The Applicants say that CRA consistently applies and upholds a) the policy of restricting collection action against third party directors who file timely Notices of Objection to director liability assessments relating to a corporate GST debt; and b) the policies and procedures set out in the 2015 Manual. [118] Since the CRA voluntarily restricted collection action, I will only address the Applicants’ assertion that there was a legitimate expectation that CRA would follow their own policies and procedures as set out in the 2015 Manual. [119] There is no evidence that the policies are so consistently applied by CRA that a legitimate expectation would arise. [120] A legitimate expectation arises when a government official makes “clear, unambiguous and unqualified” representations within the scope of their authority to an individual about an administrative process that the government will follow: Canada (Attorney General) v Mavi, 2011 SCC 30 [Mavi] at para 68. [121] Such representations will be considered sufficiently precise for purposes of the doctrine of legitimate expectations if, had they been made in the context of a private law contract, they would be sufficiently certain to be capable of enforcement: Mavi at para 69. [122] I agree with CRA that an internal policy that was rescinded at the time that the certificates were filed is not a representation that is sufficiently precise to constitute a binding contractual obligation. ...

MacKinnon, J. considered the status of a certificate holder under the old subsection 223(2) and stated, at page 44; Subsection 223(2) of the Income Tax Act provides: (2) On production to the Federal Court of Canada, a certificate made under this section shall be registered in the Court and when registered has the same force and effect, and all proceedings may be taken thereon, as if the certificate were a judgment obtained in the said Court for a debt of the amount specified in the certificate plus interest to the day of payment as provided for in this Act. ... I have not considered fully how that could have been done because the Crown did not adopt that course. ... I have considered staying execution and allowing the respondent to make monthly instalments, however, in circumstances that presently exist, I am not prepared to make such an order. ...

We have received and considered those submissions. In the Goltz case the majority judgment was given by Mr. ... Justice Gonthier considered that the application to Willy Goltz himself did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment because in his particular case there was no gross disproportionality between the punishment and the offence (page 497-503). ... Justice Gonthier considered that Willy Goltz's case was an illustration of the fact that, in its usual applications, the imposition of punishment under paragraph 88(1)(c) to a person prohibited from driving under paragraph 86(1)(a)(ii) because of a bad driving record would not result in grossly disproportionate punishment (page 504). ...