Search - considered

They cannot succeed in that purpose unless they are considered to be mandatory requirements and strictly enforced. ...

He then continues: While frequently considered as an aspect of legal relevance, the exclusion of logically relevant evidence on these grounds is more properly regarded as a general exclusionary rule (see Morris v. ...

This same issue was considered by Justice Bocock involving this same search and one of the same Appellants who was represented by Mr.  ...

Schnier can be considered not to have legal capacity for its purposes. ...

The Appeal [9]              The term “cohabiting spouse” is defined in section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act (“ ITA ”) for the purposes of the CCTB and the HSTC as follows: “cohabiting spouse or common-law partner” of an individual at any time means the person who at that time is the individual’s spouse or common-law partner and who is not at that time living separate and apart from the individual and, for the purpose of this definition, a person shall not be considered to be living separate and apart from an individual at any time unless they were living separate and apart at that time, because of a breakdown of their marriage or common-law partnership, for a period of at least 90 days that includes that time; [10]         The question under appeal was whether the Appellant and Jeffrey Scott were living “separate and apart because of a breakdown of their marriage” during the period under appeal. ...

Canada, 2009 FCA 50, 2009 DTC 5062 (“ Yates ”), the language of section 160 was considered by the Federal Court of Appeal, in relation to family law. ...

In light of the clear words used in the orders, the payments could not be considered to be equalization payments or the payment of the debt. ...

By virtue of that order, the Minister garnished the RRSP that was covered by the legal hypothec to satisfy a portion of the amount remaining owing under the certificate filed on May 15, 2008. [10]         On May 7, 2010, the trustee was discharged. [11]         On October 31, 2011, the Minister issued a reassessment for the 2010 taxation year in which he added in computing the appellant’s income an amount of $39,335 as RRSP income. [12]         The Minister considered the RRSP amount he had seized to be taxable income for the appellant’s 2010 taxation year. ...

The appellant has the onus to satisfy this Court with a degree of specificity that the $90,000 comes from a non-taxable source. [38]         Evidence considered sufficient to establish a fact until proof of the contrary constitutes prima facie evidence. ...

  [8]              Appellant counsel submitted the bank considered the appellant as the “primary recipient” He produced a document that uses the descriptor in the context of disclosure information to borrowers relating to the cost of borrowing. ...