Advanced Search

Chan v. The Queen - 2010 TCC 3 - 2010-01-07

[21] I will deal the second part first. I fail to see how the knowledge of the CRA would be relevant to the application of s. 152(4).   [...]  [27] Until fairly recently, the appellant maintained that the funds did not belong to him.   [...]  [34] In this context, it is fairly clear that the appellant had no intention of admitting that the funds were his until the respondent was able to access the testimony from the prior proceeding.

Bourget v. The Queen - 2009 TCC 533 - 2008-11-16

Faire chantier: abattre et acier des arbres. (Translation) Place where materials are stockpiled.   [...]  "Faire chantier": cut down and saw trees. Counsel for the respondent also submits that in the context of the tax reform that applied starting in 1972 the scope of the earlier provision, which applied only to construction workers working on remote sites, was considerably broadened, and on this point referred to the Summary   [...]  First, neither of the two decisions applies to the situation at issue in this case, where the appellant worked at the employer's headquarters, since, if I understand correctly, those two decisions deal with a "special work site" where it means "unusual or exceptional place" – in Jaffar because the appellant went to work at

Khan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2008 FC 512 - 2008-04-18

I also rely upon s. 10 of the Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 219, which provides that every Act “shall be deemed to be remedial” and directs that every Act shall “receive such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as will best ensure the attainment of the object of the Act according to its true   [...]  I need not deal with this argument as the applicant in this case continued the misrepresentation in his interview with the officer until the officer was able to get him to admit that he had not been employed as stated.   [...]  a) directement ou indirectement, faire une présentation erronée sur un fait important quant à un objet pertinent, ou une réticence sur ce fait, ce qui entraîne ou risque d’entraîner une erreur dans l’application de la présente loi;

Sell v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2007 FC 1313 - 2007-12-13

He says that this decision deals with retrospective application of section 5, not subsection 15(1), of the Charter.   [...]  [20] The Respondents raised submissions regarding the Review Tribunal’s consideration of the evidence and respect for procedural fairness.   [...]  The conferment of benefits, however, is balanced with the interests of fairness and financial responsibility.

Rainforth v. The Queen - 2007 TCC 132 - 2007-03-02

[6] In the further alternative, the Crown suggests that the deductions should be reduced, either because a portion of the expenses are contingent or because the appellant acquired the data in non-arm's length transactions at amounts exceeding their fair market value.   [...]  This led to a relationship that lasted approximately a decade, in which Mr. McLeod annually negotiated seismic deals with Mr. Gutsche on behalf of several investors, including Mr. Rainforth.   [...]  Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented: it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength but it must also be done fairly.

Genencor International, Inc. v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) - 2006 FC 876 - 2006-07-13

(3) Le conseil avise le demandeur de toute décision négative, celle-ci étant finale et ne pouvant faire l'objet d'un appel ou d'une révision judiciaire.   [...]  [23] By virtue of rule 335(c), Genencor's appeal is governed by Part 6 of the rules which deals with "Appeals".   [...]  (2) La Cour peut, sur requête du procureur général du Canada, si elle est convaincue que celui-ci est incapable d'agir à titre d'intimé ou n'est pas disposé à le faire, désigner en remplacement une autre personne ou entité, y compris l'office fédéral dont l'ordonnance fait l'objet de l'appel.

Johnson v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police - 2002 FCT 917 - 2002-08-28

[24] The claim is struck against Her Majesty The Queen on the ground that, as now pleaded, it discloses no cause of action and it may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action.   [...]  To that extent, the claim as drafted would without doubt prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action.   [...]  It is not therefore necessary for me to deal with the request for extension of time for the filing of a defence to the amended claim.

Houle v. The Queen - 2002-01-18

[16] Considering their lack of experience and their limited knowledge and financial resources, they made fairly serious progress, although, I admit, they were not an example to be followed.   [...]  [25] In the circumstances, given that one was dealing with novices who, although not reckless, were prepared to do what was necessary to increase their modest incomes, it was relatively easy to recruit and enlist them by taking advantage of the vulnerability of persons already influenced by a previous victim (their   [...]  I take it to be a clear rule of construction that in the imposition of a tax or a duty, and still more of a penalty if there be any fair and reasonable doubt the statute is to be construed so as to give the party sought to be charged the benefit of the doubt.

Isaza v. The Queen - 2002-01-18

[16] Considering their lack of experience and their limited knowledge and financial resources, they made fairly serious progress, although, I admit, they were not an example to be followed.   [...]  [24] In the circumstances, given that one was dealing with novices who, although not reckless, were prepared to do what was necessary to increase their modest incomes, it was relatively easy to recruit and enlist them by taking advantage of the vulnerability of persons already influenced by a previous victim (their   [...]  I take it to be a clear rule of construction that in the imposition of a tax or a duty, and still more of a penalty if there be any fair and reasonable doubt the statute is to be construed so as to give the party sought to be charged the benefit of the doubt.

Foisy v. The Queen - 2000-05-02

Fair market value, February 22, 1994 $130,000 Adjusted cost base, February 22, 1994 $22,500   [...]  We are therefore not dealing with a fact noted in a report after relevant analysis.   [...]  [22] When the $100,000 exemption was repealed in 1994, subsection 110.6(19) of the Act enabled individuals to make an election by which capital property would be deemed to be disposed of on February 22, 1994, and repurchased at its fair market value or some lower value.

Habib v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 1116 - 2023-08-17

These can include, as summarized by Justice McHaffie in ArcelorMittal Exploitation Minière Canada S.E.N.C. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FC 998: “the public interest in having proceedings move fairly and with due dispatch; the general principle of applying the Rules to secure a just, expeditious and cost-effective   [...]  I will, however, order, as was done in the cases dealing with citizenship revocation process (Monla v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1280) and the right of an appeal at the RAD (Buyu Luemba v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2018 FC 681) that the matters be specially managed in order to

Xanthopoulos v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2020 FC 401 - 2020-03-23

The Applicant claimed those documents were “essential” to proving his internal right of appeal was too slow to afford fair and adequate recourse, and to responding to the Respondent’s motion to strike.   [...]  [21] While the average timeframe for dealing with appeals may very well be long or even excessive in some cases, the Applicant has adduced no evidence that his appeal will suffer the same fate.

Specialty Software Inc. v. Bewatec Kommunikationstechnik GMBH - 2016 FC 223 - 2016-02-18

In another case, dealing with the same mark, the Board found the required association existed based on the appearance of the mark on license agreements that customers would see before installing the software, and on the installation screens themselves: Clark Wilson LLLP v Genesistems Inc, 2014 TMOB 64.   [...]  [19] I am satisfied that the evidence before me meets the fairly low threshold that a registered owner must meet to demonstrate that its mark is not merely “deadwood” on the register: Performance Apparel Corp v Uvex Toko Canada Ltd (2004), 31 CPR (4th) 270 (FC), at 282.