Search - considered

The failure to plead the ground properly in the ALJR leads to the conclusion that there is no proper application before the Court for adjudication, and, therefore, no serious issue to be considered. [33] It was submitted at the hearing of this motion that the grounds pleaded in the ALJR are pleaded in a manner that is consistent with the practice within the immigration law bar appearing before this Court. ...

A first offence is a mitigating factor to be considered by the Court when determining the sentence (Tremaine at para 24, citing Canada (Attorney General v De L’Isle, 1994 CanLII 19676 (FCA), [1994] FCJ No 955, 56 CPR (3d) 371 (CA) at 373). ...

In addition to seeking payment of $290,250, Revenue Canada considered levying a penalty under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act of up to 25% of the amount owing because the non-reporting was done knowingly or through gross negligence. ... Thus, a determination of the applicability of the Hunter standards does not hinge on whether the context of the search and seizure is “criminal” or “regulatory”, although that is a factor to be considered. ...

The scope of s. 231.1 has not previously been considered by the courts in the circumstances raised by this Application. ... The audit team identified issues considered to be high risk for the oil and gas industry and for BP in particular. ...

He considered the question, "when did the estate become indefeasibly vested in Mrs. ... Whether property was "vested indefeasibly" in a spouse as required by subsection 7(1) of the Estate Tax Act, S.C. 1958, c. 29, was considered in Dontigny Estate v. ...

The affixing of materials and the work of binding is considered as one for contractual purposes. ... However, even if a requirement that there be evidence that a notice of appeal has been filed might be considered unnecessarily particular (which I do not concede), and even if a serious issue might be derived from a reading of the reasons appealed from, irreparable harm certainly requires cogent evidence. ...

Chevalier considered this development a very important one and informed Axor's senior estimator. [20]            The importance of Benoit Auclair's testimony was his saying that in the estimate of costs calculated as likely to be incurred, to determine the overall price that Axor would bid for Gagetown and Greenwood, he had taken into account the reduction in effective GST rates on building materials resulting from the HST scheduled for April 1, 1997. [21]            He entered in evidence Exhibits P-3 and P-4. ... He considered that to say that the public notice of April 19, 1983, was not valid for the purpose of the contract was "to insert into the actual wording of a quite clear contractual provision, without good reason, an ambiguity which is external and foreign to the contract, namely that surrounding the legislative process, and then conclude that the contractual provision itself is ambiguous and requires interpretation and that the ambiguity must be interpreted against the party drafting the contract". [73]            Létourneau J.A. reasoned that "the respondent could not use factors external to the contract to create an ambiguity which serves its interests and allows it to rely to its benefit on the rule in art. 1019 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada, that an ambiguity should be interpreted in its favour". [74]            He felt that "Saying that the public notice of April 19, 1983, is not valid is also to confuse the concept of public notice mentioned in clause 22.4 of the contract and that of Notices of Ways and Means Motions on the Budget by which the public notice of the contract was implemented", and at paras. 10 and 11 concluded as follows: ¶ 10         However interesting or intriguing the vagaries of the electoral and legislative process may be, they cannot alter the factual and legal reality, or if you like, conceal the true perspective on the course of events. ...

I do not need to examine what type of powers the CRA has exercised in each case in order to determine the standard of impartiality that should be applied, as I am satisfied that the Patrys have failed to show that there exists a serious issue as to a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the BFTSO, even when considered against the standard most favourable to their position ...   [70]            I have considered the Patrys’ argument that they cannot file returns for their 2009 tax years as they do not have access to the necessary documents. ...

. […]   [49]            There, the Supreme Court considered the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words at issue, the scheme of the act under consideration, the legislative history and evolution of the provisions in issue and the purpose of the legislation ... While Friends of Oldman River, above, considered inconsistencies between acts of Parliament and inconsistent or conflicting subordinate legislation, the underlying rational is the same.  ...

In this task, the Act needs to be considered as an organic whole, with all parts working in cooperation towards a logical goal and in support of its overall purpose (R. v L.T.H., 2008 SCC 49). [37]   Pursuant to s. 260(1) of the Act, an officer (which includes an RCMP officer under s.2 of the Act), is permitted to inspect a person’s property in order to “determine…compliance with this Act.” ... It would also render meaningless the entire process of Ministerial review provided for in the Act. [42]   A similar statute was analyzed in Zolotow v Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FC 816, aff’d at 2012 FCA 164 [Zolotow] where the Court was considered the seizure-forfeiture provisions under the Customs Act. ...