Search - considered

Filter by Type:

Results 9771 - 9780 of 14769 for considered
SCC

Rattenbury v. Land Settlement Board, [1929] SCR 52

., who ordered that points (1) and (2) be answered in the affirmative, and that point (3) stand to be considered and determined by the judge trying the action. ... This makes it unnecessary to consider whether the defendant is liable to be sued in the British Columbia Courts—a question of some nicety, to which I should require to devote more time and attention than I am at present in a position to give before concluding that the considered judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia upon it was erroneous. ... There was an appeal, and a cross-appeal, to the Court of Appeal, and, in the result, by order of the Court of Appeal of 6th March, 1928, the first two findings were reversed, and it was held that the third question should be answered also in the negative, as it was considered that the Land Settlement and Development Act was wholly intra vires; the defendant's appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff's cross-appeal and action were dismissed [4]. ...
SCC

The Queen v. Beaver Lamb and Shearing Co., [1960] SCR 505

As there is no cross-appeal, this aspect of the case need not be further considered. ... A subsequent investigation showed that the respondent had over a long period been selling mouton which was considered to be subject to the excise tax but showing on its own records that the sales were of shearlings, which were in value only about one-half that of mouton and which were not subject to the tax. ... However, this is not pleaded and the matter was not in issue at the trial and need not be considered. ...
SCC

United States of America (District Court) v. Royal American Shows, Inc. et al., [1982] 1 SCR 414

Sperry Rand Corporation (1979), 23 O.R. (2d) 406, and I shall have something to say about this case (which was cited and quoted without particular emphasis) after I have looked at the English cases considered by the Alberta Court of Appeal. ... Rauland Corporation, [1956] 1 All E.R. 260, and on appeal at p. 549, which was considered in the Alberta courts. ... A number of other submissions opposing the application for judicial assistance were considered and rejected by Miller J. ...
SCC

Kingstreet Investments Ltd. v. New Brunswick (Finance), 2007 SCC 1, [2007] 1 SCR 3

Turning to the practicality of the defence, Robertson J.A. considered the evidentiary difficulties and costs associated with discerning whether the tax has effectively been passed on. ... At this point of the analysis, the Court explicitly recognized that the juristic reasons for the enrichment had to be considered in light of the reasonable expectation of the parties and certain public policy considerations (para. 46). ... The question in the present case became, ultimately, whether such concerns are properly considered within the Garland test. ...
FCA

Tolhoek v. Canada, 2008 FCA 128

  [21]            In respect of the 1997 year, the promoters testified that the General Partner and Trafalgar Capital agreed that the amount of the accrued interest on the Acquisition Note in respect of that year was to be paid on behalf of the limited partners by offsetting that amount against a corresponding amount that was considered to be owing by Trafalgar Capital to the Limited Partnership, namely, the total of the actual business revenues for that year plus an amount that was considered to be payable to Trafalgar Capital to the Limited Partnership under the Clause 4.01(k) Warranty ... That provision reads as follows: (13) For the purpose of this section, where it can reasonably be considered that information relating to indebtedness that relates to a taxpayer’s expenditure is available outside Canada and the Minister is not satisfied that the unpaid principal of the indebtedness is not a limited-recourse amount, the unpaid principal of the indebtedness relating to the taxpayer’s expenditure is deemed to be a limited-recourse amount relating to the expenditure unless (a) the information is provided to the Minister; or (b) the information is located in a country with which the Government of Canada has entered into a tax convention or agreement that has the force of law in Canada and includes a provision under which the Minister can obtain the information.   13) Pour l’application du présent article, lorsqu’il est raisonnable de considérer que des renseignements concernant une dette se rapportant à une dépense d’un contribuable se trouvent à l’étranger et que le ministre n’est pas convaincu que le principal impayé de la dette n’est pas un montant à recours limité, le principal impayé de la dette est réputé être un montant à recours limité se rapportant à la dépense, sauf si, selon le cas: a) les renseignements sont fournis au ministre; b) les renseignements se trouvent dans un pays avec lequel le gouvernement du Canada a conclu une convention ou un accord fiscal qui a force de loi au Canada et qui comprend une disposition en vertu de laquelle le ministre peut obtenir les renseignements ... Canada, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 94, 2003 SCC 9, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether the application of section 222, a tax-debt collection provision, was subject to any temporal limitation. ...
FCA

Yellow Cab Co. Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2002 FCA 294

However, pursuant to s. 6(e) of the Regulations, it is equally clear that the Commission has chosen not to do so by indicating that where taxidrivers are the operators of the business, they will not be considered to be included in "insurable employment". [42]            In [1983] 1 S.C.R. 2 "> Abrahams v. ... For this reason, hairdressers, taxi drivers, trainees/apprentices and persons under contract with an employment agency, to name a few, are included in insurable employment notwithstanding that under a traditional employee/independent contractor analysis, they would most often be considered independent contractors. ... Checkmate was, in essence, a dispatch service, whereas here Yellow Cab provides services above and beyond those of a simple dispatcher. [86]            In an alternative argument, it is asserted both Yellow Cab and the Drivers can be considered to be operators concurrently. ...
TCC

Triple M Metal LP v. The Queen, 2016 TCC 293

In Canbra Foods Ltd v Westersund (1977), [12] the Alberta Supreme Court Appellate Division considered, inter alia, the meaning of a “grain dealer” in the context of the licensing requirements pursuant to the Canadian Grain Act (“ CGA ”). [13] Under the CGA, a “grain dealer” was required to be licenced before it made any contract in respect of the purchase and sale of grain. ... While this is the general statutory context of the exclusion of a “scrap metal dealer” from the SPITC Reduction, it does not assist with the meaning of this exclusion. [59]         In the contextual analysis, the presumption against tautology must be considered to the extent that the term “scrap metal dealer” would be rendered redundant or meaningless in the context of the surrounding statutory provisions. ... To the extent that large national and multi-national coffee shop chains incur electricity costs in the course of making coffee and food for sale directly to consumers, the provincial portion of the ITCs in respect of the electricity costs must be recaptured as such activities are not considered “production” within the meaning of section 26 of the Regulations. ...
TCC

St-Pierre v. The Queen, 2017 TCC 69, rev'd 2018 FCA 144

No other form like a loan from or a debt to 2869 was mentioned;  (iii)   the respondent was an impleaded party in the Superior Court of Quebec case and the respondent could have made submissions to the effect that the amounts could be owing to 2869 in a form other than as the reimbursement of the amounts received as capital dividends under the April 30, 2013, notice of assessment, but the respondent chose to not make such submissions; and (iv)   in the alternative, if the amounts the appellant received could be considered a loan from or debt to 2869, they could not be considered as such until after January 6, 2014, the date of the judgment ordering the restitution of the amounts received. ... (d) the respondent misinterpreted the Superior Court of Quebec decision of January 6, 2014, and the appellant raises the following elements in support of his position: (i)   the Superior Court of Quebec decision of January 6, 2014, arose from a motion for a declaratory judgment to have the dividend of $596,881, which 2869 declared for the benefit of the appellant, declared null; counsel for the respondent filed a consent to judgment with respect to the motion; (ii)   the decision cancels, among other things, the February 2, 2008, resolution, declaring the dividend and the appellant's right to claim payment of said dividend to be null and non-existent; (iii)   this decision also orders the appellant to repay the amounts he received as capital dividends resulting from the February 2, 2008, resolution, with interest at the rate set out in section 80.4 of the Act; (iv)   the fact remains that until the Court rendered its decision, the amounts received by the appellant could not have been considered anything other than capital dividends; (v)   in accordance with what the judge ordered in her decision, it was only after January 6, 2014, that the appellant was under the obligation to repay the amounts that were received as capital dividends to 2869; the amounts to be returned to 2869 constitute amounts the appellant received as capital dividends from 2869 and not amounts he could have received in another form, that is, as either a loan or a debt; (vi)   as indicated in the decision, the Court orders the February 2, 2008, resolution by the sole director to be removed from the minutes book; this order could not have been made before the decision was rendered; (vii)   the restitution order resulting from the quashing of the February 2, 2008, resolution is only enforceable from the date of the decision, that is, January 6, 2014; (viii)     it follows from the interpretation of the foregoing and the Court's decision that no amount could be owing as a loan or otherwise to 2869 before the decision was rendered on January 6, 2014, and, as a result, if the Minister's assessment is valid, which is denied, any amount owing as such could only be payable as of January 6, 2014. ... The restitution was naturally not possible before the date of the judgment. [54]   The question at this stage is as follows: can the amounts the appellant received from 2869 be considered loans from the corporation to its shareholder or as debts incurred by the shareholder to the corporation that could result in the application of subsection 15(2) of the Act? ...
FCTD

Paradis Honey Ltd. v. Canada, 2017 FC 199

The Supreme Court of Canada, in Moldowan, above, listed the following as part of a non-exhaustive list of factors that should be considered when determining whether there is a reasonable expectation of profits: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer’s training, the taxpayer’s intended course of action, and the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital loss allowance. [47]   As noted above, the Beekeepers have deliberately designed a class definition that excludes hobbyist beekeepers. ... [75]   I find that there are issues in common, such that allowing the action to proceed as a class action will avoid duplication of fact-finding and legal analysis, as well as a multiplicity of individual actions based on the same issues. [76]   Rule 334.16(1)(c) requires the Court to determine whether the claims of the class members raise common questions of law or fact, and whether or not those common questions predominate over questions affecting only individual members. [77]   In Vivendi Canada Inc v Dell’Aniello, 2014 SCC 1 at paragraph 46, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that: Rumley and [WCSC] therefore establish the principle that a question will be considered common if it can serve to advance the resolution of every class member’s claim. ... Similarly, the cause of action for the novel tort of abusive administrative action focuses on the Federal Crown’s conduct (at para 144): As well, the quality of the public authority’s conduct must be considered. ...
TCC

Edmonton (Town) v. The Queen, 2015 TCC 172

Even if the CSA between the Appellant and the Latecomer is considered an agreement pursuant to subsection 123(a), the recipient will still be determined by reference to the CSA between the Appellant and the Frontender. ... In such circumstances, the person acting on behalf of the purchaser is considered an agent of the purchaser. … Ownership of Property Generally, an agent does not acquire an interest in any property it acquires as agent on behalf of a principal, as the ownership of the property passes directly to the principal. ... In Telus, this Court considered whether a third party can become a recipient of a taxable supply by virtue of a second agreement where there is an assumption of the liability for payment of the consideration. ...

Pages