Search - contravention

., contends the respondent, unless the Minister has not had regard to all the circumstances of the employment (as required by subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii) of the Act), has considered irrelevant factors, or has acted in contravention of some principle of law, the court may not interfere. ... If, however, those facts are, in the opinion of the court, insufficient in law to support the conclusion arrived at by the Minister, his determination cannot stand and the court is justified in intervening. [20] There are thus four tests which the Tax Court of Canada can apply in deciding whether it has the right to intervene: (1) whether the Minister of National Revenue has not had regard to all the circumstances of the employment; (2) whether he has considered irrelevant factors; (3) whether he has acted in contravention of some principle of law; (4) whether he has based his decision on insufficient facts. [21] In Ferme Émile Richard et Fils Inc. (178 N.R. 361), dated December 1, 1994, the Federal Court of Appeal summarized Tignish Auto Parts Inc. as follows: As this Court recently noted in Tignish Auto Parts Inc. v. ...

On September 9, 1997, the Partnership was informed that the file had been referred to Special Investigations. [4]               The new issues raised by the Appellant in the proposed pleadings are: (a)        Whether the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) used its audit powers under the Income Tax Act (the “ Act ”) to compel the Partnership to provide information after the audit had become a criminal investigation in contravention of the Charter.   (b)        If the answer to the first issue is yes, whether the evidence obtained in contravention of the Charter should be excluded pursuant to section 24 of the Charter; and, the assessments vacated. [5]               The materials presented to the court on this motion consisted of the Appellant’s affidavit which was filed in support of the motion, a transcript of the Appellant’s cross examination with respect to her affidavit and counsels’ oral and written argument. ...

., contends the respondent, unless the Minister has not had regard to all the circumstances of the employment (as required by subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii) of the Act), has considered irrelevant factors, or has acted in contravention of some principle of law, the court may not interfere. ... The Appellant had the burden of proving that the Minister, in exercising his discretionary authority, has not had regard to all the circumstances of the employment, has considered irrelevant factors, or has acted in contravention of some principle of law. ...

., contends the respondent, unless the Minister has not had regard to all the circumstances of the employment (as required by subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii) of the Act), has considered irrelevant factors, or has acted in contravention of some principle of law, the court may not interfere. ... Wrights' Canadian Ropes Ltd., contends the respondent, unless the Minister has not had regard to all the circumstances of the employment (as required by subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii) of the Act), has considered irrelevant factors, or has acted in contravention of some principle of law, the court may not interfere ...

" [16] Clause 2 has been interpreted by Donald Roulette and others as meaning that a Vice-President might hold an administrative position in the organization for which he could and would be paid without being in contravention of clause 1 of the same article. ... It does not entitle any of them to take up an administrative position in contravention of Clause 1 whilst they hold office. ...

., contends the respondent, unless the Minister has not had regard to all the circumstances of the employment (as required by subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii) of the Act), has considered irrelevant factors, or has acted in contravention of some principle of law, the court may not interfere. ... If, however, those facts are, in the opinion of the court, insufficient in law to support the conclusion arrived at by the Minister, his determination cannot stand and the court is justified in intervening. [13] There are thus four tests which the Tax Court of Canada can apply to decide whether it is entitled to intervene: the Minister of National Revenue (1) did not have regard to all the circumstances; (2) considered irrelevant factors; (3) acted in contravention of a principle of law; or (4) based his decision on insufficient facts. [14] In Ferme Émile Richard et Fils Inc. (178 N.R. 361), dated December 1, 1994, the Federal Court of Appeal summed up Tignish Auto Parts Inc. as follows: As this Court recently noted in Tignish Auto Parts Inc. v. ...

The provisions of the Customs Act apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of the administration and enforcement of this Act and the regulations, and for the purposes thereof, a contravention of this Act or the regulations or a failure to comply with a condition to which relief or a remission, drawback or refund under Part 3 is subject or to which classification under a tariff item is subject is deemed to be a contravention of the Customs Act. [11]       The plaintiff goes on to argue that, by virtue of s. 12 of the Tariff, ss 74(1)(g) and 80.1 of the Customs Act apply and make interest payable by the defendant. ...

No seizure may be made under this Act or notice sent under section 124 more than six years after the contravention or use in respect of which such seizure is made or notices sent.     .....              122. ...              (2) The burden of proof that notice was given under subsection (1) lies on the person claiming to have given the notice.              132. (1) Subject to this or any other Act of Parliament,              (a)      where the Minister decides, under paragraph 131(1)(a) or (b), that there has been no contravention of this Act or the regulations in respect of the goods or conveyance referred to in that paragraph, or, under paragraph 131(1)(b), that the conveyance referred to in that paragraph was not used in the manner described in that paragraph, the Minister shall forthwith authorize the removal from custody of the goods or conveyance or the return of any money or security taken in respect of the goods or conveyance...     .....              135. (1) A person who requests a decision of the Minister under section 131 may, within 90 days after being notified of the decision, appeal the decision by way of an action to the Federal Court " Trial Division in which that person is the plaintiff and the Minister is the defendant.          ...

They enact a prohibition and impose a penalty upon the person who acts in contravention of the prohibition. ...

Indeed, subsection 133(1) of the Code provides that:   133. (1) An employee, or a person designated by the employee for the purpose, who alleges that an employer has taken action against the employee in contravention of section 147 may, subject to subsection (3), make a complaint in writing to the Board of the alleged contravention   [Emphasis added.] 133. (1) L’employé — ou la personne qu’il désigne à cette fin — peut, sous réserve du paragraphe (3), présenter une plainte écrite au Conseil au motif que son employeur a pris, à son endroit, des mesures contraires à l’article 147     [Je souligne ...