Search - considered

But no one, not even William, considered that any of the issued shares belonged to William. ...

Thurlow, J found that the payment was a capital receipt in the hands of the appellant and in so finding at page 187 [244, 1154] made the following observations: On the whole therefore having regard to the importance of the Doulton agency in the appellant’s business, the length of time the relationship had subsisted, the extent to which the appellant’s business was affected by its loss both in decreased sales and by reason of its inability to replace it with anything equivalent, to the fact that two of the appellant’s employees became employees of the Doulton subsidiary on the termination of the relationship and the fact that from that time the appellant was in fact out of that part of its business, both as an agent and as a wholesale dealer and particularly to the nature of the claim asserted in respect of which the payment was made, I am of the opinion that, except in so far as it was a consideration for services rendered to Doulton & Co Limited, in connection with the take-over by its subsidiary which is admitted to be income, and except in so far as it took the place of commissions on sales of goods ordered before, but invoiced after December 31, 1955, the payment in question was not income from the appellant’s business, but was referable to the appellant’s claim for loss of what it and Doulton Co Limited as well considered to be the appellant’s interest in the goodwill and business in Doulton products in Canada. ...

In competitions in the Public Service, membership in co-called professional societies is considered a desirable qualification. ...

In cases of this kind also, judges have frequently held that while the oral evidence of the taxpayer in court must be considered, his actions at the time of the transaction are often of much greater weight than his oral statements made long afterwards. ...

I have considered the question of interest on the amount due the plaintiffs. ...

So, of course, was their role when Marbar and 221,401, on January 4, 1982, by agreement, Exhibit 1(4), clarified their previous agreements of December 17, 1980 to ensure that the lands stand at the risk of 221,401 and as between themselves, under seal, the parties agreed that 221,401, is considered to be the legal and beneficial owner of the lands notwithstanding that for purposes of facilitating the construction of the units and arranging financing, registered title remains in the name of the Contractor until substantial completion of the units as specified in the Development Services Agreement [i.e. the purchase agreement]. ...

The contract is silent on the duty to “repay” in such an eventuality, and given the carefully structured provisions for repayment from the sales of tickets, and the option considered in the next paragraph, I do not think that an obligation to this effect can be implied. ...

Only in the latter cases can the Crown or the Minister be considered to be bound by a compromise agreement regarding a tax reassessment. [28]            Similarly, the Sifto case dealt with an exercise of discretion by the Minister regarding the penalties assessed by the Agency. ...

First I do not feel bound by the actual purchase price paid for the property in June 1971 because other factors must be considered. ...

I indicated to counsel for Defendant at the hearing that I considered this very belated motion to be an abuse of the process of the Court, for reasons which I will set out, and also that I did not believe it should succeed on the merits... ...