Search - contravention

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. ...

No employee organization shall declare or authorize a strike of employees, and no officer or representative of an employee organization shall counsel or procure the declaration or authorization of a strike of employees or the participation of employees in a strike, the effect of which is or would be to involve the participation of an employee in a strike in contravention of section 102. ...

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" (pp. 567-68). [22] This last statement by Urie J.A. echoes the words of Justice Rouleau of this Court in Montres Rolex S.A. v. ...

(E)               Under section 23 of the Act, currency seized pursuant to subsection 18(1) of the Act will be forfeit to Her Majesty in right of Canada from the time of the contravention of subsection 12(1) of the Act. ...

It is not the role of the Minister or Minister’s Delegate in a section 29 decision to reassess the customs officer’s contravention decision: Sellathurai, above at para. 43. ...

In Servier Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of Health), 2007 FC 196 at para 17, the court explained what a continuing course of conduct means: This being said, the case law on the issue is clear, it is a contravention of Rule 302 for an applicant to challenge two decisions within one application, unless the Court orders otherwise or the applicant can show that the decisions at issue form part of a "continuous course of conduct" (Khadr v. ...

Counsel for the appellant contends that a reasonable man in the position of the respondent would have had in contemplation, notwithstanding the reports received from Blais and from the Traders Finance Company, that Routhier might well have been likely to use the car in contravention of the Act, and should therefore have made further inquiries, particularly from the police, before allowing Routhier to have possession of the car. ...

Tremblay, the objector company"s president and shareholder, [TRANSLATION] "would make his rounds". [39]      Despite the many indications given by the Minister of National Revenue, the Court is not persuaded that the two parties demonstrated a clear intention to act jointly consistent with the requirements of precedent. [40]      In short, although in the circumstances appearances may suggest otherwise, the Court is not persuaded that the judgment debtor and the objector intended to act, or did act, as an undeclared partnership and should be treated as such in accordance with the provisions of the Quebec Civil Code. [41]      The joint liability argument made by the Minister of National Revenue must also be dismissed, as the Court does not consider that the two businesses, the judgment debtor and the objector formed a partnership within the meaning of the Civil Code. [42]      The Court further dismisses the argument based on art. 317 of the Quebec Civil Code suggesting that "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". [43]      In the circumstances it seems clear that the parties at bar never intended to commit fraud: they were three persons acting in good faith two of whom already worked in a business and were in a position to know about the functioning and operation of a restaurant-bar business. [44]      These three individuals consciously decided to get into business and to form a company to operate the business, and in good faith they entered into a leasing contract for the building and equipment. [45]      Despite their legitimate efforts, it did not work out and after sustaining losses they had to give the keys back to the owner. ...

  [5]                The contraventions of the charitable registration requirements under the ITA that were alleged by the CRA in the administrative fairness letter may be summarized as follows: a)         Keeping of books and records: In 2003 approximately $678,858 of $742,553, and in 2004 approximately $1,619,011 of $1,696,069, in total expenditures by the Charity had not been substantiated with supporting documentation of any kind. ...

He did conclude, as noted, that she had removed taxpayer information without need and express authorization in contravention of CRA policy. [15]            The adjudicator also discussed the contested issue of whether any information was downloaded to the applicant’s computer or her boyfriend’s laptop. ...