Search - convention

Results 341 - 350 of 376 for convention
FCTD

Des Rosiers v. R., [1975] C.T.C. 416, 75 D.T.C. 5298

I therefore agree with the interpretation of subsection 137(1) to the effect that it is the transaction or operation which qualifies the deduction, and this qualification is that resulting from the words “would unduly or artificially reduce the income”. 30 I think subsection 137(1) justifies reference to the same dictionary, Robert, Dictionnaire de la langue française, for a definition of the words “ affaire ”, “ opération ” and “ permettre ”: Affaire: sens (II) Convention, marché, négociation, tractation, traité, transaction. ...
FCTD

Canada v. Folster, 97 DTC 5315, [1997] 3 C.T.C. 157 (FCA)

</p>] 81.(1) There shall not be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year, (a) an amount that is declared to be exempt from income tax by any other enactment of Parliament of Canada, other than an amount received or receivable by an individual that is exempt by virtue of a provision contained in a tax convention or agreement with another country that has the force of law in Canada. 3 At the outset, it should be explained that paragraph 87(1)(b) does not exempt all Indians from income tax liability. ...
FCTD

The Queen v. Poker, 94 DTC 6658, [1995] 1 CTC 84 (FCTD)

Income Tax Act 81(1) There shall not be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year, (a) an amount that is declared to be exempt from income tax by any other enactment of Parliament of Canada, other than an amount received or receivable by an individual that is exempt by virtue of a provision contained in a tax convention or agreement with another country that has the force of law in Canada. ...
FCTD

Anderson v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2003 FCT 667

Dawson"          Judge APPENDIX A Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act, sections 53 and 54: 53. (1) The Agency has the exclusive right and authority to appoint any employees that it considers necessary for the proper conduct of its business. (2) The Commissioner must exercise the appointment authority under subsection (1) on behalf of the Agency. 54. (1) The Agency must develop a program governing staffing, including the appointment of, and recourse for, employees. (2) No collective agreement may deal with matters governed by the staffing program. 53. (1) L'Agence a compétence exclusive pour nommer le personnel qu'elle estime nécessaire à l'exercice de ses activités. (2) Les attributions prévues au paragraphe (1) sont exercées par le commissaire pour le compte de l'Agence. 54. (1) L'Agence élabore un programme de dotation en personnel régissant notamment les nominations et les recours offerts aux employés. (2) Sont exclues du champ des conventions collectives toutes les matières régies par le programme de dotation en personnel. ...
FCTD

Vézina v. Canada (Defence), 2011 FC 79

Autorisation   Conditions   334.16 (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (3), le juge autorise une instance comme recours collectif si les conditions suivantes sont réunies: a) les actes de procédure révèlent une cause d’action valable; b) il existe un groupe identifiable formé d’au moins deux personnes; c) les réclamations des membres du groupe soulèvent des points de droit ou de fait communs, que ceux-ci prédominent ou non sur ceux qui ne concernent qu’un membre; d) le recours collectif est le meilleur moyen de régler, de façon juste et efficace, les points de droit ou de fait communs; e) il existe un représentant demandeur qui  : (i) représenterait de façon équitable et adéquate les intérêts du groupe, (ii) a élaboré un plan qui propose une méthode efficace pour poursuivre l’instance au nom du groupe et tenir les membres du groupe informés de son déroulement,   (iii) n’a pas de conflit d’intérêts avec d’autres membres du groupe en ce qui concerne les points de droit ou de fait communs, (iv) communique un sommaire des conventions relatives aux honoraires et débours qui sont intervenues entre lui et l’avocat inscrit au dossier ...
FCTD

Arias-Garcia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 750

A-23.01, because of his integration in his new environment:   [translation] [36]      These interests of the child are sometimes reviewed in light of Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child:   In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration ...
FCTD

Widrig v. Regroupement Mamit Innuat Inc., 2007 FC 1224

      (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes (2) et 242(3.1), toute personne qui se croit injustement congédiée peut déposer une plainte écrite auprès d’un inspecteur si:   (a) d’une part, elle travaille sans interruption depuis au moins douze mois pour le même employeur;   (b) d’autre part, elle ne fait pas partie d’un groupe d’employés régis par une convention collective ...
FCTD

Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 963

The same would be true if the Tax Court determines that the reassessments are not valid in so far as they fail to respect the settlement agreement or the agreement reached by the Canadian and United States taxing authorities under Articles IX and XXVI of the  Canada-United States Tax Convention (1980)  that determined the transfer price of the rock salt. ...
FCTD

Kouridakis v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2019 FC 1226

b) d’autre part, elle ne fait pas partie d’un groupe d’employés régis par une convention collective.   241(1) Where an employer dismisses a person described in subsection 240(1), the person who was dismissed or any inspector may make a request in writing to the employer to provide a written statement giving the reasons for the dismissal, and any employer who receives such a request shall provide the person who made the request with such a statement within fifteen days after the request is made.   241(1) La personne congédiée visée au paragraphe 240(1) ou tout inspecteur peut demander par écrit à l’employeur de lui faire connaître les motifs du congédiement; le cas échéant, l’employeur est tenu de lui fournir une déclaration écrite à cet effet dans les quinze jours qui suivent la demande. 242(1) The Minister may, on receipt of a report pursuant to subsection 241(3), appoint any person that the Minister considers appropriate as an adjudicator to hear and adjudicate on the complaint in respect of which the report was made, and refer the complaint to the adjudicator along with any statement provided pursuant to subsection 241(1).   242(1) Sur réception du rapport visé au paragraphe 241(3), le ministre peut désigner en qualité d’arbitre la personne qu’il juge qualifiée pour entendre et trancher l’affaire et lui transmettre la plainte ainsi que l’éventuelle déclaration de l’employeur sur les motifs du congédiement....   […] (3) Subject to subsection (3.1), an adjudicator to whom a complaint has been referred under subsection (1) shall   (3) Sous réserve du paragraphe (3.1), l’arbitre: (a) consider whether the dismissal of the person who made the complaint was unjust and render a decision thereon; and   a) décide si le congédiement était injuste;   (b) send a copy of the decision with the reasons therefor to each party to the complaint and to the Minister.   ...
FCTD

Pava v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1239

However, the Convention definition is forward looking, and the panel must assess whether state protection would be available to them if they returned to Hungary. [29]   Later, in its analysis of whether the Applicants have demonstrated that they are at risk upon their return to Hungary, the decision states “…the panel nevertheless finds that, cumulatively, the types of incidents that the claimants have experienced when they lived in Hungary amount to discrimination…” (at para 47). [30]   The decision continues, finding that not every Roma in Hungary has experienced discrimination amounting to persecution, and then stating: “[b]ased on these claimants’ evidence at the hearing, their personal experiences do not support a finding from this panel that they have faced discrimination amounting to persecution or that they face a forward-looking risk of persecution simply because they are Roma” (at para 49). [31]   In summary, the issue of concern is that the reasons include contradictory findings: that the Applicants did not experience discrimination; but also that they did experience discrimination but it did not rise to the level of persecution. ...

Pages