Search - contravene

I verily believe this infringement contravenes my rights, declaration, and other laws as follows: A) Charter of Rights B) The Canadian Bill of Rights C) The United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racism D) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights E) The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights F) The International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women G) The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of “A Child”- 1991 H) Canada Action Plan for Children I) Campaign 2000 J) Child Development Initiative (1990)- Brighter Futures K) Twentieth Century Rights- as per Constitution L) International Year of the Family (1994) United Nations M) International Year for the Eradication of Poverty (1996) United Nations N) And any other reasons, laws, declaration the Appellant may formulate O) These are not facts, as so the Respondent states-these are laws ratified by Canada, and therefore law, and can not be denied. 17. ...

Counsel noted that by so amending his reply, the respondent did not contravene the sine qua non condition imposed by the Board, of not taking an opponent by surprise. ...

Counsel for the appellant also argued that: (1) reinsurance with the Canadian and non-arm’s length companies was the only business of the appellant company; (2) this type of business was very passive and did not need an elaborate staff; (3) in September 1969 the Canadian directors resigned as directors of the off-shore company and were replaced by Bahamian directors; (4) in March 1970, Mr Doyle purchased a house and became a permanent resident in Nassau; (5) the appellant company’s income had not previously been earned in Canada by the Canadian companies but was new income derived from new business (69 new treaties); (6) the off-shore company was not established to contravene the Ontario or the federal Act but to do business in the Bahama Islands because (i) there was no need to increase the capital and reserve of the Canadian companies; (ii) there was no insurance restriction and no income tax in the Bahama Islands. ...

An executor who contravenes this section by a premature distribution incurs personal liability to the extent of all duties unpaid. ...

The grounds generally relate to “personal characteristics” which will usually be fundamental to an individual and not easily changed, except with great difficulty or cost. 24 It is well established that income level is not a personal characteristic and therefore distinctions based on income level do not contravene section 15 of the Charter. ...

The appellants claimed they did not contravene subsections 224(1.2), 224(4) and 224(10) of the Income Tax Act. 2 The Minister relied on the following facts in making his assessment in respect of Coopérative: [TRANSLATION] (a) the debtor assigned its property on October 22, 1992, following which the Superior Court of Quebec, sitting in bankruptcy, opened file no. 150-11-000355-925; (b) prior to the date of the bankruptcy, the debtor failed to remit to the Receiver General within the prescribed time period the federal income tax withheld from the salary it paid to its employees, which generated an income tax, penalties and interest account that reads as follows: DATE PERIOD ASSESSED FEDERAL TAX PENALTIES & INTEREST TOTAL 92/07/29 June 1992 remittances Penalty $919.08 $919.08 92/10/01 August 1992 remittances Penalty $375.84 $375.84 92/12/14 Difference T4-1992 $8,631.99- $8,631.99 Total $8,631.99 $1,294.92 $9,926.91 (c) thus, on October 22, 1992, the debtor owed the Minister $9,926.91; (d) on December 22, 1992, proofs of claim totalling $9,926.91 were filed by the Minister with the debtor's trustee in bankruptcy; (e) before the debtor assigned its property, the appellant had entered into a contract with the debtor and, at the time of the bankruptcy, owed it a contract holdback of $60,000; (f) on April 18, 1993, the respondent issued a requirement to pay to the appellant under subsection 224(1.2) of the Income Tax Act (the “ Act ”) claiming the sum of $9,926.91; (g) the said requirement to pay was renewed on July 21, 1993, September 2, 1993, December 3, 1993 and December 24, 1993, on which dates the amount claimed was reduced from $9,926.91 to $7,363.86, then to $4,562.86, to reflect the following payments received from the debtor's other creditors during that period: 93/08/31 Payment garnishment $2,563.05 93/12/21 Payment garnishment $2,801.00 Total $4,562.86 (h) the appellant did not show that it had good reasons not to comply with the said requirements to pay issued by the Minister; (i) as the appellant did not comply with the said requirements to pay, the Minister issued notice of assessment no. 7923 dated March 9, 1994, for an amount of $4,562.86. ...

Such undertakings, albeit nameless, possess a full measure of validity insofar as they do not contravene the laws of public order and good morals. ...

"‘(2) Every person, who contravenes any provision of this part in respect of which no penalty is otherwise provided, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding 500 dollars, and each day’s continuance of the act or default out of which the offence arises shall constitute a separate offence; but nothing contained in this section nor the enforcement of any penalty thereunder shall suspend or affect any remedy for the recovery of any tax payable under this part or of any moneys in the hands of an employer belonging to His Majesty. ...

  [39]         The difficulty the applicant faces in the matter at bar is that he cannot point to any operative provision of the Convention that being a considered resident of Canada for purposes of the Act would contravene. ... Instead, the Court examined Article IV (which related to dividends) of the convention and held that the definition of residency in the Act could not prevail over that Article [26]:   The amendments made in 1962 and 1965 to the Canada Income Tax Act (supra) contravene the provisions of the Canada-Netherlands Income Tax Convention and therefore ineffective to abrogate the provisions of Article IV(5) of such convention. ...

The question is whether the transaction contravenes any policy or policies underlying the provisions of the Act as a whole. ... Thus, a transaction only amounts to a misuse for the purpose of GAAR when it contravenes the policy, objective or function of the provision or provisions on which the taxpayer relies in order to avoid or minimise tax. [46]       Subsection 245(4) refers to "the provisions of this Act" not "the provision of this Act". ...