Search - contravene

The defendant further claims that the terms of the Canada-Netherlands tax convention do not apply to the taxation of the shareholders of the plaintiff company who are resident neither in Canada nor in the Netherlands with respect to the distribution of the stock dividends in issue, and that the terms of such convention do not apply to relieve the plaintiff from its obligation to withhold such tax and remit it to the Reveiver General of Canada pursuant to subsection 109(1) of the Act nor does the imposition of such tax by the Minister contravene the provisions of such convention. ... 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 are therefore ineffective to abrogate the provisions of Article IV(5) of such convention. ...

[emphasis added]       It is obvious that the expression “Except as expressly provided by any other Act” at the beginning of section 39 means that a law relating to prescription in a province that contravenes a provision of a federal Act cannot be relied on. ... It therefore does not contravene section 135 as it is barred from doing by section 39 of the Federal Court Act. ...

Factual and procedural contexts behind the motion [5]                The main elements of these contexts seem to be as follows: [6]                As I had the opportunity to note in my decision on December 14, 2005, the two parties are competitors in the field of wood preservatives. [7]                In an action initiated in 2002, Osmose accused Laurentide of having usurped its rights by using the trademark “Conservator”. [8]                In defence and counterclaim, Laurentide denied any infringement and argued that the Osmose trademark is invalid and must be struck. [9]                In its action, Osmose sought as remedy the profits that Laurentide may have made by its infringing actions. [10]            Not satisfied with the affidavit of documents produced in that regard by Laurentide in early 2003 following a deadline set by the Court in an order dated February 21, 2003, Osmose filed a motion on May 5, 2003, to force Laurentide to file a more complete affidavit of documents. [11]            Osmose at first bases its motion for recusal in part on my alleged statements at that hearing on May 5, 2003, and discussions for an out-of-court settlement on May 13 of the same year. [12]            The fact that I was a mediator at the time on May 13, 2003, and that I then continued to act as an adjudicator on motions allegedly also places me in a conflict of interest and allegedly led me, according to Osmose, to contravene the rule that a mediator cannot subsequently act as an adjudicator in the same case. [13]            Finally, as a third ground for recusal, Osmose cites certain paragraphs from my order on December 14, 2005, to claim that those paragraphs, by themselves or combined with the statements made on May 5, 2003, show that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias on my part. ... At that time, the Court had in mind Rule 3 of the Federal Courts Rules (the Rules) and the interests of the administration of justice. [23]            That order on May 5, and its preamble, read as follows: [translation] Motion by the applicant [Osmose] seeking: A)            An order made by the Court to have the pleadings of the respondent [Laurentide] struck in whole or in part; B)            An order to have an accurate or complete affidavit of documents served and filed by the respondent; C)            An order for the respondent to pay costs; D)            Any other order that the Court deems necessary for the applicant to be relieved of the rules of procedure that would contravene the presentation of this motion; [Rules 222, 223 and 227 paragraphs (b), (c) et (d) of the Federal Courts Rules (1998)] ORDER             The applicant’s motion is adjourned sine die.             ...

Since the Minister lacks jurisdiction to make a reassessment in respect of the return filed by the applicant outside of the normal reassessment period, Prothonotary Tabib did not err in finding that the Court could not require the Minister to contravene the Act by issuing a reassessment. ... The appeal is dismissed in respect of the Prothonotary’s decision to strike the paragraphs from the notice of application, finding that the Minister cannot be ordered to contravene the Act by making a reassessment outside of the three-year limitation period; 2.       ...

Blue Bridge notes that Article 26(1) of the Convention states that the information that the competent authorities of participating States may exchange must be used to carry out the Canada-France Tax Treaty, to the extent that the intended taxation does not contravene it. [61]   According to Blue Bridge, France is seeking to tax potential, discretionary beneficiaries on Canadian capital from the Trusts. ... For the same reasons, Blue Bridge submits that the RFIs submitted by the Minister are not relevant to carrying out the Convention because they would lead to taxation that contravenes it. [62]   Therefore, Blue Bridge is of the view that the Convention does not authorize France to ask the Minister to exercise the powers vested in her by the ITA to require the trustees to disclose the documents and information. [63]   Blue Bridge adds that France’s intent is to tax potential beneficiaries on Canadian capital, when the purpose of the tax treaties is to reduce or eliminate double taxation: Crown Forest at para 46. ... It should be noted that the Minister does not represent France and has no connection to this matter other than as the Canadian competent authority for obtaining the information and documents required by France under the Convention. [74]   France clearly has a genuine and valid interest in opposing Blue Bridge’s applications because the declaratory order sought would contravene a decision of a French court having jurisdiction in the matter. [75]   It is not for Blue Bridge to judge the appropriateness of France’s legislative choices in the arena of taxation or to deprive its tax authorities of the information it could use to perform its auditing functions. ...

.), 1982, c 11) [Canadian Charter] and contravenes Canada’s international obligations under various treaties that Canada is a party to because the DRC is a country under a moratorium as a result of the atrocities committed there; returning the applicant and her children to that country would violate, inter alia, sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter. ... 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. … Division 5 Loss of Status and Removal Report on Inadmissibility Preparation of report 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. ...

Rather, it is an arguable issue which merits further exploration: Imperial Tobacco, above, at para 91. [39]            Finally, the Respondents argue that a duty to warn would directly contravene the confidentiality obligations in section 241 of the ITA and policy relating to this issue, i.e. to avoid issuing warnings when private individuals are involved, both on the “investor” and “participant” sides. [40]            First, I note that the Prothonotary dealt with this issue (Order, pp 16-17). Even if I were to consider it de novo here, the existence of a duty on CRA to warn taxpayers about questionable tax schemes in a timely manner, enumerated in section 14 of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, suggests that the duty to warn does not in fact directly contravene the confidentiality obligations, and/or any policy decisions to disclose, flowing out of that section. ...

In addition to the statement of defence, the defendant filed a counterclaim, seeking a declaration that subsection 31(2) of the Income Tax Act contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982. ...

Finally and more importantly, even if the taxation year of a deceased taxpayer is to be considered to remain at all times the 31st of December of the year of his decease, where a regulation is validly issued pursuant to a taxing statute and does not contravene any of the provisions of that statute, and where such a regulation purports to afford a deduction or some relief to the taxpayer from the tax burden imposed by the taxing statute, its effect must never be considered as nullified by reason of the existence of another enactment in a statute totally unrelated to taxation, especially where the enactment emanates from another jurisdiction. ...

After careful consideration I am prepared to agree with this submission which I think does not contravene the principle outlined in Lackie or conflict with it, as it can be distinguished in the special circumstances in this case finding as I do that it was the sale of an asset, with the price calculated partly as royalties. ...