Search - considered

When property is considered to have been acquired for the purposes of the Act; 3. ...

Section 4 is as follows: ing to alter its previous wording, the deletion of three stringently restrictive adverbs: wholly, exclusively and necessarily, cannot be considered meaningless. ...

The following criteria should be considered: 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. ...

Now, if are considered the terms used in the Act, those in the agreement, and together with those used afterwards in all communications between the parties with respect to the agreement, there is no doubt that no one ever contemplated that the contractual relationship between the Board and Pool could be that of buyer and seller. ...

. […] [5]   In respect of the acts which the principal expressly or impliedly consents that the agent shall so do on the principal’s behalf, the agent is said to have authority to act; and this authority constitutes a power to affect the principal’s legal relations with third parties. [6]   [17]     The e xistence of an agency relationship was considered by the Federal Court of Appeal in Glengarry Bingo Assn. v. ...

For example, a specific legacy of $1,000 to an executor cannot be considered remuneration if the provisions of the will as a whole do not appear to refer to the executor's office. ...

Each case must be considered on its merits. In one case, a guideline may be very significant, but in another, because of different circumstances, its probative force may be negligible or it may have weight only because of the existence of other guidelines or indicators.   ...

The canon of construction which appears to arise on this submission is established authoritatively in Heydon’s Case 76 ER 637: That for the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law), four things are to be discerned and considered: (1) What was the common law before the making of the Act (2) What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide (3) What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth (4) The true reason of the remedy. ...

On the other hand, I am satisfied, as I will now explain, that the facts relied on by the trial judge lead to his conclusion in this case because when they are considered in the context of the whole matter, on the evidence that has been put before the Trial Division, the balance of probability is that the “partnership” did not perform management services for Central Park Estates Limited, As I understand the appellant’s case, it was incumbent on the appellant to establish (a) that on or about November 1, 1965, the nine family corporations formed a partnership called “Central Park Management Company”, (b) that on or about the same time, Central Park Estates Limited entered into a contract with the partnership under which the partnership was to manage the apartment blocks, (c) that the partnership thereupon authorized the five active directors to act for it in carrying out the management services under that contract, and (d) that, commencing November 1, 1965, the five active directors carried on the management of the apartment blocks on behalf of the partnership and not as directors of Central Park Estates Limited. ...

Therefore, it is convenient to deal with that issue now so that it need not be considered at the new hearing ...