Search - considered

The use of the expression “eligible capital” in the Act is potentially confusing and, to properly interpret the legislation, its meaning must be considered in the context of the following expressions: 1. ... The proceeds of each sale must necessarily be considered for taxation purposes as ordinary income and not as part of the disposition of a capital asset, the converse being applicable in the case of a taxpayer carrying on a business totally unrelated to the buying and selling of real estate, who incidentally disposes of a piece of real estate because it is no longer required for business purposes. ...

I adopt his reasoning and the comments which follow are simply an elaboration of certain aspects considered by him. 45 Briefly put I am unwilling to accept that because some might characterize this as a criminal process the preconditions for a search as proclaimed by the Supreme Court in Canada (Director of Investigation & Research, Combines Investigation Branch) v. ... I think it is obvious from his judgment that he considered there to be no basis for declaring the whole section to be invalid. ...

  [110]        Although a fishing licence may be considered to be an “interest” or a “ profit à prendre ”, the Supreme Court clearly stated in Saulnier that the finding of rights and privileges in respect of fishing licences should not be interpreted as limiting the Minister’s discretion or as expanding the scope of the privileges granted to licence holders under the Act and the Regulations ... Issues concerning the definition of the rights or interests related to fishing licences have already been considered by the courts and need not be revisited (Comeau’s Sea Food, Carpenter and Kimoto) ...

He argues, whether correctly or not, the Minister was responding to the tax payer’s claim by issuing notices indicating nil amount of RITCs even though the years at issue were long since statute barred but considered he could not issue refunds after the statute barred period.  ...     [88]            Guylaine Gaudreault, the decision-maker, during her cross-examination said: (1)                  To her knowledge before she was named acting Assistant Director of the SREDD Division in the Montreal TSO, Signalgene had never requested the determination of its RITCs (Transcript p 26). (2)                  The September 2008 request was not a request for the determination of its RITCs by the applicant; that occurred on September 10, 2010; it was a brand new request (Transcript pp 264 and 299). (3)                  Recognized the request to issue the Notice of Determination for Signalgene’s RITC, was not statute-barred, that is, made out of time; such a request could be made at any time (Transcript pp 329, 330 and 404). (4)                  Her July 27, 2010 decision had no impact on her decision being reviewed this proceeding because it is not related to the same request (Transcript p 333). (5)                  If the request for the issuance of a Notice of Determination of RITCs had been made and no Notice of Assessment or Re-assessment had been issued before she stated “of course, we would have had to provide one ” (Transcript pp 404 and 414). (6)                  In her mind, the decision to refuse the request to issue Notices of Determination for the Relevant Taxation Years was based on the fact that CRA had already issued one and was not obliged to issue another one (Transcript p 409); a conclusion which was based on the fact she considered the Notices of Assessment or Re-assessment issued (after audit) to be the same as a Notice of Determination (Transcript pp 313, 335, 371 and 413) but she recognized that she had not taken into account in reaching her decision the February 2002 Tax Ruling (Transcript p 322) which expressed a contrary view. (7)                  At page 414 of the Transcript she stated she could make multiple determinations and was not limited to only making one determination and when asked why she did not do so when it was requested for this first time on September 10, 2010 she answered “ It probably had to do with all the previous requests that had been denied because I think this claimant made several requests from different angles and it was always no and I didn’t feel I had the obligation to issue a Notice of Determination that had already been issued.” (8)                  Did not consider the right of the taxpayer to amend his/her returns when she decided to refuse the request for the issuance of Notices of Determination (Transcript p 421). (9)                  In short, the judicial review application was not filed out of time ...

JP Morgan, at para 82. [119] Although the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in JP Morgan considered assessments under the Income Tax Act, the analysis with respect to judicial review applications is equally applicable to the GST provisions of the Excise Tax Act: Johnson, at para 21. ... (At the hearing, the Minister’s counsel recognized that the “decision” could be considered to be more than one decision for the purposes of Rule 302 of the Federal Courts Rules, but did not pursue the point on this motion.) [121] Grounds for Judicial Review: The first Notice of Application pleaded that CRA’s proposal letter dated March 16, 2021, proposed to deregister Newave’s GST/HST program account, disallow input tax credits and assess gross negligence penalties. ...

Given the specific purposes of the BIA and its broad definition of property in section 2, the bundle of rights thus conferred on the licence holder must be considered as property for the purposes of the BIA and the PPSA. ... Consequently, in order for the purposes of the BIA to be achieved, Parliament needed to include this asset, which is not normally considered property at common law but is needed to operate a commercial fishing enterprise. [109]        However, Justice Binnie reassured the Attorney General of Canada and added that this holding should not be taken out of context: [48]      Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada was greatly concerned that a holding that the fishing licence is property in the hands of the holder even for limited statutory purposes might be raised in future litigation to fetter the Minister’s discretion, but I do not think this concern is well founded. ... What DFO tried to achieve through those negotiations, with no genuine compromising on his part, was a multiyear joint project agreement for financing DFO’s scientific activities, specifically, the improved soft-shell crab protocol and the trawl survey. [235]        Even before those negotiations failed, DFO had already considered certain “creative” options in the event that no joint project agreement were reached with traditional crabbers. ...

Prior to the enactment of section 227.1, however, the Departments of Finance and National Revenue had specifically considered and rejected such a course as an alternative to that provision: see Kroft, supra at 30:13. ...

If my recollection of the evidence is correct, it is my belief that these witnesses testified that all of the passage-ways could not be considered as main haulage ways or works similar thereto. ...

Judson, J further considered the report of Re Goodjallow, Traders' Bank v Goodfallow (1890), 19 OR 299 again noting (at 636): Again, I can find in the report no mention of any agreement in writing, but even in its absence the principle is plainly to be spelled out that if you sell my goods with my consent, it is on terms that you bring me the money in place of the goods. ...

In contending that in establishing market value the terms of the agreements should not be considered plaintiff relies principally on an old Newfoundland case re Harvey, Assessor of Taxes v Walsh, [1950] 3 DLR 257. ...