Search - contravene

Did the plaintiffs contravene the Customs Act as noted in the seizure report?      ... Did the plaintiffs contravene the Customs Act as noted in the seizure report? ...

Counsel for the applicant argued that subsection 231(4) does not contravene the Charter in so far as it gives the Minister, when he has valid grounds for believing that offences have been committed by a taxpayer, the power to authorize a search and seizure in respect of that offence. ... It is common ground that subsection 231(4) does not contravene the Charter in so far as it gives the Minister, when he has valid grounds for believing that an offence has been commited by a taxpayer, the power to authorize a search and seizure in respect of that offence. ... In my view, that subsection violates section 8 of the Constitution Act, 1982 in that it contravenes the right of the taxpayer “to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” ...

A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act   (a) in the case of a foreign national, through an act or omission which contravenes, directly or indirectly, a provision of this Act; and   (b) in the case of a permanent resident, through failing to comply with subsection 27(2) or section 28.   44 (1)    An officer who is of the opinion that a permanent resident or a foreign national who is in Canada is inadmissible may prepare a report setting out the relevant facts, which report shall be transmitted to the Minister.   44(2)    If the Minister is of the opinion that the report is well-founded, the Minister may refer the report to the Immigration Division for an admissibility hearing, except in the case of a permanent resident who is inadmissible solely on the grounds that they have failed to comply with the residency obligation under section 28 and except, in the circumstances prescribed by the regulations, in the case of a foreign national. ... The Immigration Division, at the conclusion of an admissibility hearing, shall make one of the following decisions:   (a) recognize the right to enter Canada of a Canadian citizen within the meaning of the Citizenship Act, a person registered as an Indian under the Indian Act or a permanent resident;   (b) grant permanent resident status or temporary resident status to a foreign national if it is satisfied that the foreign national meets the requirements of this Act;   (c) authorize a permanent resident or a foreign national, with or without conditions, to enter Canada for further examination; or   (d) make the applicable removal order against a foreign national who has not been authorized to enter Canada, if it is not satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible, or against a foreign national who has been authorized to enter Canada or a permanent resident, if it is satisfied that the foreign national or the permanent resident is inadmissible.     124 (1)  Every person commits an offence who   (a) contravenes a provision of this Act for which a penalty is not specifically provided or fails to comply with a condition or obligation imposed under this Act;   (b) escapes or attempts to escape from lawful custody or detention under this Act; or   (c) employs a foreign national in a capacity in which the foreign national is not authorized under this Act to be employed.   124(2)              For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), a person who fails to exercise due diligence to determine whether employment is authorized under this Act is deemed to know that it is not authorized.   124(3)              A person referred to in subsection 148(1) shall not be found guilty of an offence under paragraph (1)(a) if it is established that they exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.   125.     ...

[Emphasis added.] [77]   The section on sanctions reads as follows: 124 (1) Every person commits an offence who (a) contravenes a provision of this Act for which a penalty is not specifically provided or fails to comply with a condition or obligation imposed under this Act; (b) escapes or attempts to escape from lawful custody or detention under this Act; or (c) employs a foreign national in a capacity in which the foreign national is not authorized under this Act to be employed. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), a person who fails to exercise due diligence to determine whether employment is authorized under this Act is deemed to know that it is not authorized. (3) A person referred to in subsection 148(1) shall not be found guilty of an offence under paragraph (1)(a) if it is established that they exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. 125 A person who commits an offence under subsection 124(1) is liable (a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or to both; or (b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. ... They had the permit but did not comply with the conditions relating to the employer. [119]   The good faith of the appellants and the fact that they were misled were alleged [79] to urge the Court not to deem the contract of employment between the appellants and their employer absolutely null. [120]   The Court of Appeal [80] expressed an openness in stating the following: [translation] “Although articles 1411 and 1413 of the CCQ and section 41.3 of the Interpretation Act stating that ‘[p]rohibitive laws entail nullity, even if nullity is not pronounced therein’ create a presumption of the invalidity of a juridical operation that contravenes a prohibitive law, that presumption may be rebutted where it appears that the legislature’s objectives in enacting the prohibition require that the nature, circumstances and effects of that juridical operation be examined.” ...

Did the Agency contravene the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter "the  Charter "):   1.  ...   [293]   The situation might have been different if the Appellant had argued that the provisions of the Act that gave rise to the assessments contravene the Charter ...   (2.2)     Every person who   (a) contravenes subsection 241(1), or   (b) knowingly contravenes an order made under subsection 241(4.1),   is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both. ...

The basis of this appeal is that the learned trial judge erred in law in holding that the mandatory minimum fine does not contravene section 12 of the Charter: Treatment or punishment 12. ... He delivered his decision with reasons on September 11, 1991 holding that the minimum fine provisions did not contravene section 12 of the Charter. ...

We are in agreement with the learned Trial Division Judge that the imposition of higher rates of taxation on taxpayers of higher income does not contravene section 15 of the Charter. ...

.* [2] As for the contention that the Alternative Minimum Tax provisions are invalid because they contravene the Charter, specifically section 15 thereof, it appears to us, as it appeared to the Tax Court judge, simply untenable. ...

While I would agree with these views I am bound by the majority judgment in which the point is made by Justice Pratte at pages 12-13: It is common ground that subsection 231(4) does not contravene the charter insofar as it gives the Minister, when he has valid grounds for believing that an offence has been committed by a taxpayer, the power to authorize a search and seizure in respect of that offence. ... In my view, that subsection violates section 8 of the Constitution Act, 1982 in that it contravenes the right of the taxpayer “‘to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” ... Having concluded that the authorizations for search granted pursuant to subsection 231(4) fo the Income Tax Act must be quashed as it contravenes section 8 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and is therefore inoperative and is of no force or effect the only question remaining to be considered is whether this would necessarily result in return of the documents seized. ...

He says that this change has had the effect of discriminating against those whose marginal rate of income tax is in excess of 17%, because the rate of tax credit is limited to 17% regardless of the income of the taxpayer. [2]      We are in agreement with the learned Trial Division Judge that the imposition of higher rates of taxation on taxpayers of higher income does not contravene section 15 of the Charter. ...