Search - contravention

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... ...

Secondly he argued that the result contended for by the respondent would produce “discriminatory hardships” in that the result would deny the appellant the right available to other persons of the same class in contravention of the appellant’s basic human rights. ...

Generally speaking, damages arise from the failure of a person in fulfilling specific obligations contained in a written or verbal contract; the law; tacit agreements and even in the principles of natural justice — which failure must be the identifiable cause of damages sustained by the other contracting party because of the contravention of his acquired rights. ...

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 respondent contended that: — Oil Field had not been in business in the years immediately prior to the material period: —until 1967 Oil Field had been engaged in the drilling business; — in 1967 Oil Field ceased to do business and divested itself of its operating assets; —between 1967 and December of 1970, Oil Field was inactive: —as at September 30, 1970 Oil Field had operating losses to carry forward, for tax purposes, in the amount of $29,770.35; —there is a document dated December 1, 1970 which purports to be an agreement providing for the provision of management engineering services by Oil Field to Riverheights in connection with a particular real estate development of Riverheights in the City of Brandon and that Oil Field would provide the purported management engineering services by providing the services of W W Fotheringham, Professional Engineer, the appellant; —there exists a document dated October 24, 1972 which document purports to amend the purported agreement of December 1, 1970; —the appellant, during the material period, directly or indirectly was the beneficial owner of 50% of the issued and outstanding shares of Riverheights and of 100% of the issued and outstanding shares of Oil Field; —the appellant provided the services to Riverheights for which services the aforementioned amounts were paid to Oil Field by Riverheights; —no bona fide business purpose existed for the interposition of Oil Field between the appellant and Riverheights; —the transactions or agreements whereby Oil Field purported to provide management engineering services to Riverheights and whereby the appellant purported to provide the same services to Oil Field was a sham; —the aforementioned amounts paid by Riverheights to Oil Field were income of the appellant for his 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974 taxation years as reassessed and that the said amounts were received by Oil Field on behalf of the appellant; —the document dated December 1, 1970 purports to have Oil Field carry on for hire the practice of professional engineering, as defined in clause 2(g) of The Engineering Profession Act, RSM 1970, c E120, and in contravention of the provisions of the said Act set forth in sections 11,15 and 28 thereof. ... Findings First, it should be noted that arising from the points made by the respondent in the reply to notice of appeal, counsel for the respondent did comment on the alleged contravention of The Engineering Profession Act but the Board does not consider this as the principal issue and will make no further remarks on it. ...

On the other hand, if a section of the statute is not only ambiguous and confusing, but an allegedly literal interpretation and application of the law would also have a result which would be contrary to a basic principle of tax law, it would, in my opinion, in such a case be equally unjustifiable to interpret and apply the letter of the law in contravention with the Legislature’s evident intent. ...

THAT in consideration of the said payment, MAISON DE CHOIX hereby releases PLACE VERSAILLES, its officers, directors and/or affiliates, from any and all claims of any kind or nature whatsoever, and more particularly but without limitation, from any claim arising from the Lease, from any claim urged in the Action or arising from the judgment rendered thereon, in debt, interests and costs, as well as from any claim for alleged damages suffered as a result of any alleged contravention of the Lease during any period subsequent to that claimed for in the Action; (Exhibit A-1-12) 3.25 The damages caused to the appellant by PVI’s breach were described by Mr A Nussbaum in his testimony: Q What damage was being caused to MAISON DE CHOIX, Mr Nussbaum, by PLACE VERSAILLES’ breach? ...