Search - considered

At that latter stage, the Court will review all the evidence on record and ask itself whether, on the whole of the evidence submitted by the parties, there are reasonable grounds to be believe that the collection of any part of the assessment amount would be jeopardized by delay. [23] When reviewing a Jeopardy Order, “[t]he judge shall determine the question summarily and may confirm, set aside or vary the authorization and make such other order as the judge considered appropriate” (Robarts at para 4). ...

Accordingly these items seized as part of the Anton Piller Order on the premises of the defendants’ store are instances of infringement concerning Louis Vuitton and Dior. [93]   Accordingly, out of the 36 allegations of instances of infringement, 35 must be considered further for the purpose of concluding whether they constitute instances of infringement. ... There were three such incidents for a total of $45,000. [145]   The Court considered that there was a further alternative, one that was to become the new standard: “nominal” award per infringing activity. ... This is obviously a far cry from the amounts considered some 10 years earlier, in the Nike cases. ...

Dumping is considered an unfair trade practice because imported goods are sold in Canada at a price (the export price) less than the price the goods are sold for in the country of origin (the normal value).  ...   [65]       Having considered the proposed categories of both parties, I am satisfied that the remaining 38 transactions can appropriately be dealt with under the defendant’s proposed categories.  ... The purpose of the anti-dumping order is to protect the A53 market (and the other markets named in the CITT order) considered to be at risk from dumping.  ...

The Plaintiffs state that no sovereign government such as Canada should ever borrow money from commercial banks at interest, when it can borrow from its own central bank interest-free, particularly when that central bank, unlike the banks of any other G-8 nation, is publically established, mandated, owned and accountable to Parliament and the Minister, and was created with that purpose as one of its main functions. [11]            Fourth, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that the fact that the minutes of meetings involving the Governor of the Bank of Canada [Governor] and other G-8 central bank governors have been kept secret is ultra vires the Governor, as being contrary to the Bank Act – particularly s 24 – and ought to be considered unconstitutional conduct. [12]            The fifth declaration sought is that, by allowing the Governor to keep the nature and content of international bank meetings secret, by not exercising the authority and duty contained in ss 18(i) and (j) of the Bank Act, and in enacting s 18(m) of the Bank Act, Parliament has abdicated its duties and functions as mandated by ss 91(1)(a), (3), (14), (15), (16), (18), (19), (20) of the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as s 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982. [13]            The Plaintiffs’ sixth and seventh declarations involve the manner in which the Minister accounts for public finances, which the Plaintiffs say is conceptually and logically wrong. ... Now that amendments have been made the Court has to decide whether the Plaintiffs have resolved these problems. [125]        The grounds brought forward by the Defendants in the present Rule 221 motion, as well as the arguments of the Plaintiffs, have to be considered in light of what the Court has already ruled about the Bank Act claims and what the Federal Court of Appeal has endorsed. [126]        The Plaintiffs fault the Defendants for again raising arguments on justiciability that the Court has already decided and the Federal Court of Appeal has endorsed. ... Their argument is that freestanding declarations on the constitutionality of laws and legal authority are always available to any Canadian citizen. [136]        Since my Order of April 24, 2014 was considered by the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal has had occasion to consider and pronounce in some detail on what the Court can do with pleadings that contain freestanding requests for declaratory relief. ...

On November 29th, 1971, the Executors received a Notification by the Minister dated the 26th day of November 1971, wherein the Minister confirmed the said Assessment and stated the ground upon which such confirmation was based as follows: “The Honourable the Minister of National Revenue having duly considered the facts and reasons set forth in the Notice of Objection and matters thereto relating hereby confirms the said assessment as having been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in particular on the grounds that the value of 2,000 Class B shares of Wenonah Investments Limited were correctly determined having regard to the value of rights or property comprised in the disposition or settlement contemplated by the Agreement of February 5, 1963, by virtue of the provisions of paragraph (d) or paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act or alternatively by virtue of the provisions of paragraph (i) of subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act.” 23. ...

Justice Dickson lists, again at page 314 [5215], a number of criteria which might be considered in the determination of a “reasonable expectation of profit”, such as ”... the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer's training, the taxpayer's intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance.” ...

Downs in the following words: Having considered the decisions, the writings and the various aspects of the public interest which claim attention, I have come to the conclusion that the Court should state the relevant principle as follows: a document which was produced or brought into existence either with the dominant purpose of its author, or of the person or authority under whose direction, whether particular or general, it was produced or brought into existence, of using it or its contents in order to obtain legal advice or to conduct or aid in the conduct of litigation, at the time of its production in reasonable prospect, should be privileged and excluded from inspection. ...

When asked why he considered the obligation under a credit note as current liability and the obligation under a warranty as contingent, he said: ‘.. the credit note, while it is a liability, is also an existing obligation today. ...

While Mrs Venne said in her evidence that she considered herself to be a partner (see transcript 1192) it is clear from the context that she was speaking of a partnership of husband and wife in which she contributed what she could — and it was very considerable — to the success of the business. ...

It is my considered opinion that I have to look at all the elements of the scheme. ...