Search - contravention

Indeed, the Court will only strike out a statement of claim if it is plain, obvious and beyond doubt that the claim is one which cannot succeed. [5]      As I have noted, the claim arises from the undervaluation of goods, for customs purposes and the resulting failure to pay appropriate duty, on the proper value under sections 17 and 32 of the Customs Act, the latter section also referring to regulations. [6]      Section 24(1) of the Customs Act allows the customs officer, believing on reasonable grounds that there has been a contravention of the Act, to take various steps including serving a notice demanding payment. ... [emphasis added] The key concept to take from this is that the Court is limited to a consideration of whether there has been a contravention of the Customs legislation opening the goods and the plaintiff to liability under the Notice of Ascertained Forfeiture. [9]      The law obliges an importer of goods to properly declare them, including by declaring a proper value, and to then pay the appropriate duty. ...

Further, I find the Registrar as a Taxing Officer did consider all matters raised by the Appellant and, I can not find in the submissions or the filed Affidavit in this proceeding any contravention of section 154 of the Rules of Procedure. In essence, I find the Registrar as the Taxing Officer had the authority to act, considered all submissions and has not acted in contravention of some principle of law. ...

Moreover, unless it be shown that the Minister has acted in contravention of some principle of law the Court, in their Lordships’ opinion, cannot interfere: the section makes the Minister the sole judge of the fact of reasonableness or normalcy and the Court is not at liberty to substitute its own opinion for his. ...

The visa officer has wide discretion in assessing the evidence and coming to a decision, however the decision must be based on reasonable findings of fact. [17]   The Officer’s decision includes three factors that the Applicant argues are unreasonable: (1) family ties in Canada; (2) economic motives to remain in Canada; and (3) the Applicant’s prior contravention of the conditions of a study permit. 1.   ... Prior Contravention of Conditions of a Study Permit [24]   The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant would comply with the conditions of a study permit based on his personal history. ... The Officer’s reasons related to the Applicant’s contravention of his prior study permit are transparent, intelligible, and supported in the record. [29]   Considering these three factors, the Officer’s decision appears unreasonable. ...

Instead, the Act permits the Minister, on reasonable and probable grounds, to assess a monetary penalty against a person or corporation for an alleged contravention.  ... The person or corporation named has the choice of either paying the penalty or requesting a review of the alleged contravention or the amount of the penalty, or both.  If the person or corporation chooses the settlement option, section 7.9 of the Act bars any further proceedings in respect of that contravention. ...

Subsection (4) of sec. 84 further provides that any money paid or given in contravention of the section may be recovered from the licensee by the person making the payment. ... Finally, it was argued that the policy pursued by the appellant was an evasion, and in the manner of its procedure was a contravention, of the provisions of the Government Liquor Control Act, 1928, of Manitoba. ... With reference to these provisions, it is stated that a large part of the beer was bought on credit and the submission is that such a method is a direct contravention of the section. ...

As a further ground for challenging the said assessment this appellant has submitted that any purported agreement of purchase and sale made in contravention of section 26 of The Planning Act, RSO 1960, c 296 is void and of no legal effect and any amount purported to be payable thereunder by a prospective purchaser is not, in fact, a legally collectable amount by the vendor. ... Subsection 10(3) referred to is as follows: 10. (3) The contravention, before this section comes into force, of section 26 of The Planning Act or a predecessor thereof or of a by-law passed under section 26 or a predecessor of section 26 or of an order made under clause b of subsection 1 of section 27 of The Planning Act or a predecessor thereof does not have and shall be deemed never to have had the effect of preventing the conveyance or creation of any interest in land, provided that this section does not affect the rights acquired by any person from a judg- ment or order of any court given or made in any litigation or proceedings commenced on or before the day this section comes into force. ... Part of the amending legislation in subsection 10(3) of The Planning Amendment Act specifically deals with the existing situation herein as follows: The contravention before this section comes into force, of section 26 of The Planning Act... does not have and shall be deemed never to have had the effect of preventing the conveyance or creation of any interest in land... ...

In those decisions, the Manager confirmed that there was a contravention of the Customs Act in respect of the seized vehicles.   ... It is further responsible for addressing amounts assessed for the return of conveyances in the event of a contravention. ...   [20]            When the Minister decides under section 131 of the Customs Act that there has been a contravention of that Act, section 133 lays out the remedies he may pursue with respect to the enforcement action.   ...

There was a contravention of subsection 12(1) of the Act: “as the currency in your possession was of a value greater than $10 000.00 CAD and you failed to declare it to Canada Border Services Agency, a contravention of subsection 12(1) of the Act did occur. ... They state to whom, by whom, when, how, why and in what circumstances a report must be made and the consequences of a contravention. ...       …   27. (1) Dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours qui suivent l’expiration du délai mentionné au paragraphe 26(2), le ministre décide s’il y a eu contravention au paragraphe 12(1). ...

  [2]                The plaintiff challenges the Minister’s decision that she failed to report currency, in contravention of section 12 of the PCMLTFA.  ... She argues that the Court is entitled to consider whether or not there was a deliberate and knowledgeable contravention of the cross-border currency reporting requirements in respect of the Currency to determine if she was in contravention of section 12 of the PCMLTFA ... The importer is liable for having failed to meet the obligation to accurately account for the goods which, from the time of the contravention, are forfeit to the Crown.  ...