Search - contravention

The relevant limitation period had expired for most of the items that were the subject of the contravention of the Act by the Plaintiffs, so that those items could not give rise to proceedings under subsection 124(1) of the Act and summary judgment should issue to this effect; 6.        ... It was clear to me that the Plaintiffs could not show there was no genuine issue for trial on any of the issues raised. [12]            The Plaintiffs' frustration in this case comes from having to disprove contravention of the Act so long after the events in question. ...

By that time, based on the positions that had been taken by Environment Canada, the Respondents fully expected that Environment Canada would initiate a prosecution or a civil claim against the corporate Respondents unless the Respondents agreed with Environment Canada's contention that PCB materials were being stored in contravention of the Regulations and implemented a plan to store or dispose the ASR at issue in the manner prescribed by the Regulations and CEPA. 12.            ... It is said that Environment Canada's sampling and analysis led it to conclude that the respondents were storing PCB material in contravention of the Regulations. ...

La personnalité juridique d'une personne morale ne peut être invoquée àl'encontre d'une personne de bonne foi, dès lors qu'on invoque l'abus de droit ou une contravention à une règle intéressant l'ordre public. ... In no case may a legal person set up juridical personality against a person in good faith if it is set up to dissemble fraud, abuse of right or contravention of a rule of public order. ...

In a letter dated May 19, 2010, the CBSA Recourse Directorate informed the Plaintiff that his request was accepted and his complaint was being considered. [9]                By letter dated October 20, 2011, the Minister found that the actions of the Plaintiff constituted a contravention of the Act under section 131 and that $7,051.12 of the amount paid by the Plaintiff for the return of his goods was to remain held as forfeit pursuant to section 133. ... In a letter dated June 8, 2010, the CBSA Recourse Directorate informed the Plaintiff that his request was accepted and his complaint was being considered. [17]            By letter dated October 19, 2011, the Minister found that the actions of the Plaintiff constituted a contravention of the Act under section 131 and that the $5128.48 was to be held as forfeit pursuant to section 133. ...

Sous réserve de la règle 467, est coupable d’outrage au tribunal quiconque: (a) at a hearing fails to maintain a respectful attitude, remain silent or refrain from showing approval or disapproval of the proceeding; (a) étant présent à une audience de la Cour, ne se comporte pas avec respect, ne garde pas le silence ou manifeste son approbation ou sa désapprobation du déroulement de l’instance; (b) disobeys a process or order of the Court; (b) désobéit à un moyen de contrainte ou à une ordonnance de la Cour; (c) acts in such a way as to interfere with the orderly administration of justice, or to impair the authority or dignity of the Court; (c) agit de façon à entraver la bonne administration de la justice ou à porter atteinte à l’autorité ou à la dignité de la Cour; (d) is an officer of the Court and fails to perform his or her duty; or (d) étant un fonctionnaire de la Cour, n’accomplit pas ses fonctions; (e) is a sheriff or bailiff and does not execute a writ forthwith or does not make a return thereof or, in executing it, infringes a rule the contravention of which renders the sheriff or bailiff liable to a penalty. ... The level of the fine, Urie J.A. indicated, could not be a token fine because this would “be inconsistent with the gravity of the contraventions and might serve to encourage others to flout the law if it is to their financial advantage to do so”. [22]      This last statement by Urie J.A. echoes the words of Justice Rouleau of this Court in Montres Rolex S.A. v. ...

In contravention the defendant contends that the deduction claimed was properly disallowed by the Minister because the plaintiff was not a Canadian-controlled private corporation in that for the period from May 1, 1978 to December 8, 1978 it was controlled by a non-resident. ...

]   [7] Moreover, since several other notaries have also previously been subject to similar requests from the Minister, on April 28, 2005, the Chambre pursued in the Superior Court of Québec an originating motion through which it asks the Superior Court to declare inapplicable sections 231.2, 231.7 and 232 of the Act that give rise to seizures or searches through letters of requirement addressed to notaries stating that they flagrantly violate professional privilege and notaries’ independence as well as the obligations of discretion and loyalty owed to their clients, all in contravention of the Constitution of Canada and, in particular, sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [8] It should be noted that, in addition to the Canada Revenue Agency and the Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General of Quebec and the Barreau du Québec also appeared before the Superior Court as part of the Chambre’s recourse. [9] In the WIC Premium Television Ltd. v. ...

The level of the fine, Urie J.A. indicated, could not be a token fine because this would "be inconsistent with the gravity of the contraventions and might serve to encourage others to flout the law if it is to their financial advantage to do so". ¶ 22         This last statement by Urie J.A. echoes the words of Justice Rouleau of this Court in Montres Rolex S.A. et al. ...

The level of the fine, Urie J.A. indicated, could not be a token fine because this would "be inconsistent with the gravity of the contraventions and might serve to encourage others to flout the law if it is to their financial advantage to do so". ¶ 22     This last statement by Urie J.A. echoes the words of Justice Rouleau of this Court in Montres Rolex S.A. et al. v. ...

The file did contain references to two cargo containers being involved in alleged contravention of the Act. [5]                 The plaintiff's solicitor believed that Decision No. 1 related to both containers and accordingly, filed an appeal directly related to Decision No. 1. ...