Search - contravention

Rae submits that the Minister conceded that he has failed to examine her 2013 tax return, to issue a corresponding tax assessment, and to send her a Notice of Assessment. [23]            She further submits that the Minister has adopted a policy of delaying or postponing the processing of returns where a taxpayer participated in a widely-marketed gifting tax shelter, and that this Court has already found this to be in contravention with section 152 of the ITA in Ficek v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FC 502 [Ficek]. ...

Accordingly, I conclude that a failure on the part of the Appellant to continually meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of the definition of charitable organization is a failure of the type stipulated in paragraph 168(1)(b) and constitutes a sufficient basis upon which the Minister could revoke the Appellant’s status as a charitable organization. [73]            Accordingly, it is my view that based upon these grounds of revocation, the Confirmation Decision is reasonable. (1) Failure to keep books and records as required under paragraph 230(2)(a). [74]            The Appellant’s first assertion is essentially a procedural fairness argument to the effect that the Confirmation Decision was not limited in its focus to a contravention of only paragraph 230(2)(a), with the result that it did not know the case it had to meet in order to successfully challenge that decision in this Court. [75]            This assertion is unpersuasive. ...

This doctrine, as applied in Canada, is based on the principle that the “circumstances” affecting procedural fairness take into account the promises or regular practices of administrative decision-makers, and that it will generally be unfair for them to act in contravention of representations as to procedure, or to backtrack on substantive promises without according significant procedural rights [citations omitted] ...

The respondents submit that section 268 of the Act provides that such a corporation shall be carried on without pecuniary gain to its members, that all profits and accretions to the corporation shall be used in furthering its undertaking and that the applicant, by purporting to make its members beneficiaries of a trust of the corporate property, has, in effect, conferred a pecuniary gain upon the members in contravention of the Act. ...

The effect of such legislation is known to the persons concerned from the point in time when it is likely to take effect. [9] In my view, even if it could be said that a retroactive statute affecting property rights is inherently in breach of the due process of law, it would be difficult for anyone to maintain that they have thereby been unduly deprived of their property right in contravention of section 1(a) of the Bill of Rights in circumstances where he or she was aware of the retroactive application of the statute from the exact moment when it was likely to affect him or her. ...

., 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. ...

., 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. ...

., 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 CCRA considered the moneys withdrawn from Abacus’ account in Brossard as advances made to Thomas Lavin in contravention of the requirements to pay and assessed Abacus for an amount of $91,639 with respect thereto.   ...

  [33]     To consider the Minister's decision and replace it with my own decision, it must be established that:   (a)      The Minister acted in bad faith or for an improper motive or in contravention of some principle of law; or;           (b)     failed to take into account all relevant circumstances; or;           (c)     took into account any irrelevant factors ...