Search - considered

Justice Bastin considered in ascertaining the date of acquisition was not the date on which the shares were fully paid nor the date on which the share certificates were issued but the date on which the taxpayer established a binding proprietary right in the legal ownership of the shares. ...

If the order or search warrant may be reviewed, the weight to be given to the information may be considered at that time. ...

In my view, all the interest must be considered as the interest paid for the borrowing used for the purchase of said shares. ...

Bearing in mind that shares in a corporation are in a different position for present purposes from some other kinds of property, I am nevertheless, after having considered the various relevant indicia revealed by the whole of the evidence, left with the conviction that the appellants’ dealings in corporate shares constituted a business within the definition of that word in subsection 248(1) of the Act. ...

The decision to make sales of this kind was adopted as a business policy because it was considered to be in the best overall commercial interests of the appellant. ...

Maurice Desjardins (sole specified shareholder owning ten per cent of the capital stock (125(9)(c)) and his daughter Martine are in effect the only persons who can be considered to have provided the services. ...

As between the business of farming and the business of practising medicine, when what was committed to each is considered together with the financial results of each it is, I think, apparent that farming was in a sideline relationship to practising medicine. ...

What are the facts which emanate from the evidence in this appeal that considered objectively, as suggested by Dickson, J., are conducive to a determination of the issue before the Court? ...

But, in principle, there does not appear to be any major argument between the parties that the "concentrate", in itself could be, and should be considered for purposes of the Act as a "property for sale", and the Court has not looked at that question. ...

., [1981] C.T.C. 415; 81 D.T.C. 5318 in which case the court considered the two earlier cases and found at 418 (D.T.C. 5320) that: All that Colford (supra) is authority for, in my opinion, where the facts are as in this case, is that the Minister could not require the taxpayer to take subject amounts into income. and at 419 (D.T.C. 5321): The Guay decision referred to supra, simply reaffirms the principle set out in Colford (supra) and does not, in my view, add to or extend that principle in any way. ...