baux – -Translation – Keybot Dictionary

Spacer TTN Translation Network TTN TTN Login Deutsch Français Spacer Help
Source Languages Target Languages
Keybot 705 Results  scc.lexum.org  Page 3
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
La Loi s'applique non seulement aux options qui doivent être levées pour une somme symbolique, mais aussi aux options qui doivent être levées à la juste valeur marchande des objets loués. En l'espèce, les baux tombent sous le coup du sous‑al.
XXII.          In my opinion these cases were decided correctly and lead to the conclusion that the Act was intended to encompass all lease agreements where the lessee-optionee is given the option of becoming the owner of the leased goods.  The Act applies not only to options which are to be exercised for a nominal sum, but also to options which are to be exercised at the fair market value of the leased goods.  The leases here fall within the scope of s. 2(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, provided the option in clause 32 is truly an "option".
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
L'Acte habilitait le gouvernement à accorder des licences et des baux exclusifs visant des secteurs de pêche, mais aucune de ses dispositions ne pourvoyait à l'aliénation permanente de droits de pêche à des intérêts privés.
XXXIII.      An examination of the early Fisheries Acts of the Province of Canada and the first Fisheries Act of the new Dominion, the Fisheries Act, S.C. 1868, c. 60, confirms this same policy of exercising only limited powers.  The Act gave the government the right to grant exclusive leases and licences to fishing grounds, but there was no provision in the Act for the permanent alienation of fishing rights to private parties.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Ventes conditionnelles ‑‑ Baux ‑‑ Options d'achat ‑‑ Locataire ayant l'option d'acheter des hélicoptères à leur juste valeur marchande raisonnable à l'expiration du bail ‑‑ Baux non enregistrés en vertu de la Conditional Sales Act ‑‑ Séquestre des biens nommé par le créancier garanti après que le locataire eut manqué à ses engagements aux termes d'un prêt ‑‑ Bailleur réclamant le droit de reprendre possession des hélicoptères conformément aux baux ‑‑ Les baux étaient‑ils des contrats de vente conditionnelle?
Conditional sales ‑‑ Leases ‑‑ Options to purchase ‑‑ Lessee having option to purchase helicopters for reasonable fair market value at end of lease ‑‑ Leases not registered under Conditional Sales Act ‑‑ Secured creditor appointing receiver for property after lessee defaulted on loan ‑‑ Lessor claiming right to possession of helicopters pursuant to leases ‑‑ Whether leases conditional sales ‑‑ Whether leases had to be registered under Act ‑‑ Conditional Sales Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 84, s. 2(1)(b)(ii).
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
6 Le juge en chambre a conclu que les baux avaient conféré à Pegasus l'option de devenir, à leur expiration, propriétaire des hélicoptères. Les termes de l'article 32 conféraient au locataire le droit unilatéral de contraindre le bailleur à vendre et, partant, lui conféraient l'option de devenir propriétaire.
VI.              The chambers judge held that the leases gave Pegasus the option of becoming the owner of the helicopters at the expiration of the lease term.  The terms of clause 32 gave the lessee the unilateral right to compel the lessor to sell, and hence gave the lessee the option of becoming the owner.  He declared the two leases were conditional sales contracts within the meaning of both the Conditional Sales Act and the Instalment Payment Contracts Act, and dismissed the respondent's application.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Il peut sembler anormal de laisser une université retirer un revenu de baux commerciaux consentis sur des terrains acquis par legs sans qu’elle soit tenue au paiment des taxes, surtout lorsque, comme on nous l’a indiqué, il ne paraît y avoir aucune disposition permettant de taxer les locataires commerciaux.
It may be anomalous to permit a university to reap revenue from commercial leases of land acquired by devise, without being obliged to pay taxes, especially when, as was indicated to us, there also appears to be no provision for taxing the commercial tenants. The anomaly is evident in relation to university legislation elsewhere, as, for example, in Ontario where there is provision that exemption of university property from taxation is allowed only so long as it is actually used and occupied for the purposes of the university: see, for example, The Trent University Act, 1962-63 (Ont.), c. 192, s. 23; The University of
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Ventes conditionnelles ‑‑ Baux ‑‑ Options d'achat ‑‑ Locataire ayant l'option d'acheter des hélicoptères à leur juste valeur marchande raisonnable à l'expiration du bail ‑‑ Baux non enregistrés en vertu de la Conditional Sales Act ‑‑ Séquestre des biens nommé par le créancier garanti après que le locataire eut manqué à ses engagements aux termes d'un prêt ‑‑ Bailleur réclamant le droit de reprendre possession des hélicoptères conformément aux baux ‑‑ Les baux étaient‑ils des contrats de vente conditionnelle?
Conditional sales ‑‑ Leases ‑‑ Options to purchase ‑‑ Lessee having option to purchase helicopters for reasonable fair market value at end of lease ‑‑ Leases not registered under Conditional Sales Act ‑‑ Secured creditor appointing receiver for property after lessee defaulted on loan ‑‑ Lessor claiming right to possession of helicopters pursuant to leases ‑‑ Whether leases conditional sales ‑‑ Whether leases had to be registered under Act ‑‑ Conditional Sales Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 84, s. 2(1)(b)(ii).
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Dans ce prospectus, il est fait mention des deux baux du droit d’extraction des alcalis acquis par Astral; et, dans chaque cas, le prospectus déclare que [TRADUCTION] «une redevance supplémentaire de 25 cents la tonne est payable à Thomas E. Keyes
I also support the view of the Court of Appeal that there is no enforceable royalty claim against the appellant in respect of lease A-163. The trial judge found for Keyes on this issue by relying on a prospectus issued by Astral under date of March 25, 1952. That prospectus referred to the two alkali leases acquired by Astral; and, in respect of each, the prospectus stated that “a further royalty of 25 cents per ton is payable to Thomas E. Keyes on all anhydrous salt produced and sold from the said land”. Bence
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Le simple fait que les preneuses des baux consentis par Javelin transportent le minerai de fer dans une autre province pour le traiter et le vendre, ne transforme pas la Loi qui impose une taxe à Javelin en une loi visant à réglementer les échanges et le commerce.
There is no substance in this submission. The Act under consideration is a tax upon income. There is no suggestion that it is aimed at the regulation of interprovincial or international trade. The mere fact that Javelin’s lessees remove the iron ore to another province for processing and sale does not convert the Act which imposes a tax on Javelin into legislation for the regulation of trade and commerce. (See Carnation Co. Ltd. v. Quebec Agricultural Marketing Board, [1968] S.C.R. 238).
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
5 L'intimée, qui voulait obtenir la priorité de rang, a présenté une demande de jugement déclarant que les baux n'étaient pas des contrats de vente conditionnelle au sens de la Conditional Sales Act et qu'elle avait le droit de reprendre possession des hélicoptères conformément aux dispositions des baux.
V.                The respondent, seeking priority, made an application for a declaration that the leases were not conditional sales contracts under the Conditional Sales Act and that it was entitled to possession of the helicopters in accordance with the provisions of the leases.  The chambers judge held the leases to be conditional sales contracts that had to be registered under the Act and dismissed the application. The Court of Appeal by a majority judgment disagreed and held that the agreements were true leases and not conditional sales contracts: (1993), 108 D.L.R. (4th) 342, 22 C.B.R. (3d) 95, 125 N.S.R. (2d) 297, 349 A.P.R. 297.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Les questions à trancher dans le présent litige découlent de la prétention de l’intimé qu’il a droit à une redevance de vingt-cinq cents par tonne sur tout le sel anhydre extrait et vendu en vertu des deux baux.
The issues in this litigation arise from the claim of the respondent that he is entitled to a royalty of twenty-five cents per ton on all anhydrous salt produced and sold from the two leases. Anhydrous salt is the deposit covered by the leases. The claim was sustained in toto after trial before Bence C.J.Q.B., but on appeal it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to the royalty only in respect of lease A-4010. In this Court, the appellant urges that the claim for royalty should be denied as to both leases and the respondent seeks restoration of the judgment at trial.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Les questions à trancher dans le présent litige découlent de la prétention de l’intimé qu’il a droit à une redevance de vingt-cinq cents par tonne sur tout le sel anhydre extrait et vendu en vertu des deux baux.
The issues in this litigation arise from the claim of the respondent that he is entitled to a royalty of twenty-five cents per ton on all anhydrous salt produced and sold from the two leases. Anhydrous salt is the deposit covered by the leases. The claim was sustained in toto after trial before Bence C.J.Q.B., but on appeal it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to the royalty only in respect of lease A-4010. In this Court, the appellant urges that the claim for royalty should be denied as to both leases and the respondent seeks restoration of the judgment at trial.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
5 L'intimée, qui voulait obtenir la priorité de rang, a présenté une demande de jugement déclarant que les baux n'étaient pas des contrats de vente conditionnelle au sens de la Conditional Sales Act et qu'elle avait le droit de reprendre possession des hélicoptères conformément aux dispositions des baux.
V.                The respondent, seeking priority, made an application for a declaration that the leases were not conditional sales contracts under the Conditional Sales Act and that it was entitled to possession of the helicopters in accordance with the provisions of the leases.  The chambers judge held the leases to be conditional sales contracts that had to be registered under the Act and dismissed the application. The Court of Appeal by a majority judgment disagreed and held that the agreements were true leases and not conditional sales contracts: (1993), 108 D.L.R. (4th) 342, 22 C.B.R. (3d) 95, 125 N.S.R. (2d) 297, 349 A.P.R. 297.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Grâce à l'application de la règle expressio unius est exclusio alterius, la mention des propriétaires ou occupants dans la disposition implique qu'il est possible d'adopter un règlement excluant toutes les autres personnes du régime de baux et de permis.
The respondent argued that the phrase "untravelled portions of highways" includes the sidewalks adjacent to highways.  If sidewalks are "untravelled portions of highways," the respondent argues that s. 310(a) does authorize a distinction between owners or occupants of adjoining property and other persons.  Through application of the expressio unius est exclusio alterius rule, the reference to owners or occupants in the provision implies that a by-law may be passed excluding all other persons from the leasing and licensing scheme.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Astral a acquis ces baux d’un certain E.L. Harvie (qui les détenait pour lui-même et pour deux autres personnes) en vertu d’une convention écrite datée du 30 juin 1948 et suivie de cessions portant la même date.
Astral acquired these leases from one E.L. Harvie (who held them on behalf of himself and two others) under an agreement in writing of June 30, 1948, which was followed by assignments of even date. The required approval was given when fresh assignments were executed by Harvie on August 3, 1955. Harvie had obtained the mining rights, reflected by the two leases, prior to 1930 when the title to the land was in the Crown in right of Canada. His rights were renewable, and were preserved when the surface title passed to the Crown in right of the Province. The immediate source of his rights, prior to the assignment to Astral, was under an indenture of January 30, 1948, in respect of lease A-4010 and under an earlier indenture of January 31, 1944, in respect of lease A-163.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Au mois d’avril 1927 par exemple, alors qu’il cherchait à obtenir des baux de chutes d’eau sur une autre rivière de l’Ontario, le président de la société a écrit ce qui suit au ministre des Terres et Forêts:
The second argument advanced by counsel for the Province of Ontario and by the Town is that, as a result of statements made by representatives of the Company in the early years of the agreement relating to the supply of power to the Town, the Company is now estopped from claiming that it is not obliged to provide the Town with all the power it needs. In April of 1927, for example, in the course of seeking water power leases on another Ontario river, the president of the Company wrote to the Minister of Lands and Forests stating that:
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
En vertu d’une cession datée du 6 septembre 1961, de Astral Mining & Resources Limited, une compagnie ontarienne, elle a acquis (selon les termes de la cession): [TRADUCTION «[deux] baux du droit d’extraction des alcalis [soit les nos A-4010 et A-163] délivrés en conformité des Alkali Mining Regulations établis en vertu du Mineral Resources Act de la province de Saskatchewan».
LASKIN J. (dissenting)—The appellant before this Court is a Crown corporation and as such an agent of the Crown under the Crown Corporations Act, R.S.S. 1965, c. 39. By an assignment of September 6, 1961, from Astral Mining & Resources Limited, an Ontario company, it acquired (in the words of the assignment) “[two] alkali leases [being Nos. A-4010 and A-163] issued pursuant to the Alkali Mining Regulations under the Mineral Resources Act of the Province of Saskatchewan”. The assignment was endorsed with a certificate of consent given under s. 11 of the Alkali Mining Regulations which was as follows:
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
19 La jurisprudence canadienne appuie la conclusion que la Loi s'applique aux baux dont il est question en l'espèce. Dans l'arrêt Ramsey c. Pioneer Machinery Co. (1981), 37 C.B.R. (N.S.) 193 (C.A. Alb.), le failli avait signé simultanément, à l'égard d'un certain matériel, un bail et un contrat d'option qui ne furent pas enregistrés conformément à la Conditional Sales Act.
XIX.            The conclusion that the Act applies to the leases in this appeal is supported by Canadian jurisprudence.  In Ramsey v. Pioneer Machinery Co. (1981), 37 C.B.R. (N.S.) 193 (Alta. C.A.), the bankrupt had concurrently executed a lease and an option agreement covering certain equipment.  The lease and option agreements were not registered in accordance with the provisions of the Conditional Sales Act.  (The Alberta Act did not contain the same wording as the Nova Scotia Act, but the import and effect of the legislation are the same.)  The option provided that if the lessee performed the terms of the lease, it would have the option of continuing to rent the equipment, or purchasing it for $9,000, which was the forecasted fair market value at the expiry of the lease.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Aucun arrêt de cette Cour ne tranche ni n’étudie la question de savoir si les redevances découlant de baux dits miniers sont des intérêts dans un bien-fonds ou dans quelles circonstances, s’il en est, elles peuvent l’être.
There is no decision of this Court which either pronounces upon or examines royalties under so-called mining leases on the question whether they are or in what, circumstances, if any, they can be interests in land. I speak here of royalties not in the sense of a vested interest in mineral deposits, or in oil or gas, as the case may be, in situ (which is a sense that has been sometimes attributed to them, particularly in a line of American cases, and see Gowan v. Christie[5]), but rather in the sense of a share in or a return on production for permission to exploit certain property or in respect of such exploitation: see Re Dawson and Bell[6], at pp. 838, 842. This is the sense in which it is spelled out in the agreement of June 3, 1948, between Keyes and Astral.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Javelin a alors consenti, en tant que bailleur, des baux d’une part à Pickands Mather et à Steel Company of Canada, en tant que preneuses, relativement à la partie ouest du dépôt Wabush et d’autre part à Wabush Iron Company Limited, en tant que preneuse, relativement à la partie est de ce dépôt.
The Nalco-Javelin (Mineral Lands) Act, 1957 (Nfld.), c. 84, was enacted by the Legislature of Newfoundland. It authorized the Lieutenant Governor in Council to enter into agreements with all of the parties above named. Section 3 provided that such agreements must be substantially similar to the terms of the “statutory agreement” which appeared as a schedule to the Act. Leases were then made between Javelin, as lessor, and Pickands Mather and the Steel Company of Canada, as lessees, covering the westerly portion of the Wabush Deposit, and between Javelin, as lessor, and Wabush Iron Company Limited, as lessee, in respect of the easterly portion of that deposit.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
12 Selon son libellé, la Loi s'applique aux baux qui comportent une option d'achat. Elle diffère des lois plus modernes sur les sûretés mobilières actuellement en vigueur dans un bon nombre de provinces.
XII.             The Act by its terms is applicable to leases which contain an option to purchase.  This is different from the more modern Personal Property Security legislation currently enacted in many of the provinces.  That legislation is based on Article 9 of the American Uniform Commercial Code, and deals with concepts such as "security interest" and "security agreement" which are foreign to the Conditional Sales Act.  The issue of whether a lease is intended by way of security or whether it is in substance a security agreement arises under Personal Property Security legislation. Cases decided under Personal Property Security legislation have no application to the case at bar as this appeal turns on the provisions of the somewhat antiquated Conditional Sales Act.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
2(1)b)(ii) de la Conditional Sales Act, qui définit une «vente conditionnelle» aux fins de la Loi. Il s'agit de déterminer si les baux sont visés par cette définition. Si les baux sont des contrats de vente conditionnelle au sens de la Loi, l'intimée perd alors sa priorité de rang parce qu'elle a omis de s'enregistrer.
IX.              This appeal raises the interpretation of s. 2(1)(b)(ii) of the Conditional Sales Act, which defines a "conditional sale" for the purposes of the Act.  Whether the leases fall within the scope of that definition is the issue in dispute. If the leases are conditional sale agreements under the definition in the Act, then the respondent loses its priority because of its failure to register.  Conversely if the leases are leases only then the respondent is entitled to possession and priority.  Two questions arise:  does a lease with an option to purchase at fair market value fall within the ambit of s. 2(1)(b)(ii) the Act; and is clause 32 a true option?
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
L'intimée n'avait pas le droit de décider si elle allait ou non donner en premier à Pegasus l'occasion d'acquérir les hélicoptères. C'est à Pegasus que revenait le droit, aux termes des baux, de décider si elle voulait acquérir les hélicoptères.
XXIV.         Clause 32 is not a right of first refusal, or right of pre-emption.  The respondent did not have the right to decide whether or not it was going to give Pegasus the first chance to purchase the helicopters.  The choice was with Pegasus, by virtue of the leases, to decide whether it wished to purchase the helicopters.  It alone had the ability to compel the sale of the helicopters.  As stated by the Chambers judge, the terms of clause 32 gave the lessee on signing the leases the unilateral right to compel the lessor to sell.  I respectfully cannot agree with the Court of Appeal's conclusion that clause 32 was merely a right of pre-emption.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Le Code de procédure civile de 1867 pose le principe d’une compétence des cours de recorder et la Cour du recorder de Montréal avait compétence en 1867 dans le territoire de Montréal relativement aux baux d’une valeur annuelle n’excédant pas 100 $ (par comparaison à 200 $ dans le cas de la Cour de circuit): elle pourra, selon le texte qui lui confère sa compétence, agir en vertu de l’Acte concernant les locateurs et locataires de la même manière que la Cour de circuit et que la Cour supérieure.
The Commissioners’ Courts which existed between 1821 and 1965 always had some jurisdiction over matters between lessors and lessees, at least as regards the collection of rent. The Code of Civil Procedure of 1867, laid down the principle of jurisdiction by Recorder’s Courts, and in 1867 the Montreal Recorder’s Court had jurisdiction within the territory of Montreal over leases with an annual value not exceeding $100 (as compared with $200 in the case of the Circuit Court): according to the statute conferring its jurisdiction, it could act under the Act respecting Lessors and Lessees in the same way as the Circuit Court and the Superior Court.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
5 L'intimée, qui voulait obtenir la priorité de rang, a présenté une demande de jugement déclarant que les baux n'étaient pas des contrats de vente conditionnelle au sens de la Conditional Sales Act et qu'elle avait le droit de reprendre possession des hélicoptères conformément aux dispositions des baux.
V.                The respondent, seeking priority, made an application for a declaration that the leases were not conditional sales contracts under the Conditional Sales Act and that it was entitled to possession of the helicopters in accordance with the provisions of the leases.  The chambers judge held the leases to be conditional sales contracts that had to be registered under the Act and dismissed the application. The Court of Appeal by a majority judgment disagreed and held that the agreements were true leases and not conditional sales contracts: (1993), 108 D.L.R. (4th) 342, 22 C.B.R. (3d) 95, 125 N.S.R. (2d) 297, 349 A.P.R. 297.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Dans cette affaire, il s’agissait de déterminer si certains baux miniers non expirés et consentis sur des terres de la Saskatchewan par le gouvernement fédéral avant que le Canada cède à la Saskatchewan ses ressources naturelles en 1930, devaient être considérés comme abandonnés lorsque, en 1931, d’autres baux consentis par la province les ont remplacés, ceux-ci étant à leur tour remplacés en 1937.
Nothing that was decided by this Court in Attorney General of Saskatchewan v. Whiteshore Salt and Chemical Co. Ltd. and Midwest Chemicals Ltd.[9] bears on the issues now before it. That case was concerned with whether certain unexpired mining leases of Saskatchewan land, granted under federal authority before the 1930 transfer to Saskatchewan of its natural resources by Canada, must be taken to have been surrendered when in 1931 the leases were replaced by others granted by the Province, these being in turn replaced in 1937. On the answer to this question depended the liability of the lessees to increased royalties prescribed under provincial law. If there was no surrender, the lessees were protected by a provision of the Natural Resources Agreement of 1930. Kellock J., who spoke for the
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Tant avant qu’après la Confédération, les cours supérieures, de comté ou de district ont donc toujours exercé une compétence exclusive sur le règlement des litiges entre propriétaires et locataires, y compris la résiliation des baux et l’éviction des locataires.
It is clear, as appears from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, that prior to 1867 in Upper Canada the only tribunals which could make ejectment orders were the Court of Queen’s Bench, the Court of Common Pleas, and the County Court in limited situations, and that only the Court of Chancery could make orders of specific performance or issue mandatory or prohibitory injunction orders. The settlement of disputes between landlords and tenants, including the termination of tenancies and eviction of tenants, has thus always been within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior, District and County Court judges both before and after Confederation.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Cette preuve, tirée de documents figurant dans les archives publiques, démontre qu'au cours de ces deux périodes la Couronne a toujours eu pour politique claire et précise de refuser d'accorder à perpétuité des droits exclusifs sur des secteurs de pêche. Cependant, elle accordait, à l'égard de secteurs donnés, des licences ou des baux exclusifs pour des périodes déterminées.
XXVIII.      The historical evidence as to the standard practice of the Crown can be conveniently divided into pre‑ and post‑Confederation periods.  This evidence, taken from documents in the public archives, demonstrates that in both periods there was a clear and specific Crown policy of refusing to grant, in perpetuity, exclusive rights to fishing grounds.  The Crown would, however, grant exclusive licences or leases over particular areas for a fixed period of time.  Obviously this practice was far from an absolute assignment of a fishery right.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
2(1)b)(ii) de la Conditional Sales Act, qui définit une «vente conditionnelle» aux fins de la Loi. Il s'agit de déterminer si les baux sont visés par cette définition. Si les baux sont des contrats de vente conditionnelle au sens de la Loi, l'intimée perd alors sa priorité de rang parce qu'elle a omis de s'enregistrer.
IX.              This appeal raises the interpretation of s. 2(1)(b)(ii) of the Conditional Sales Act, which defines a "conditional sale" for the purposes of the Act.  Whether the leases fall within the scope of that definition is the issue in dispute. If the leases are conditional sale agreements under the definition in the Act, then the respondent loses its priority because of its failure to register.  Conversely if the leases are leases only then the respondent is entitled to possession and priority.  Two questions arise:  does a lease with an option to purchase at fair market value fall within the ambit of s. 2(1)(b)(ii) the Act; and is clause 32 a true option?
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Dans cette affaire, il s’agissait de déterminer si certains baux miniers non expirés et consentis sur des terres de la Saskatchewan par le gouvernement fédéral avant que le Canada cède à la Saskatchewan ses ressources naturelles en 1930, devaient être considérés comme abandonnés lorsque, en 1931, d’autres baux consentis par la province les ont remplacés, ceux-ci étant à leur tour remplacés en 1937.
Nothing that was decided by this Court in Attorney General of Saskatchewan v. Whiteshore Salt and Chemical Co. Ltd. and Midwest Chemicals Ltd.[9] bears on the issues now before it. That case was concerned with whether certain unexpired mining leases of Saskatchewan land, granted under federal authority before the 1930 transfer to Saskatchewan of its natural resources by Canada, must be taken to have been surrendered when in 1931 the leases were replaced by others granted by the Province, these being in turn replaced in 1937. On the answer to this question depended the liability of the lessees to increased royalties prescribed under provincial law. If there was no surrender, the lessees were protected by a provision of the Natural Resources Agreement of 1930. Kellock J., who spoke for the
  document  
€€Central€Capital€Leasing€(ð ðCentralð ð),€qui€avait€des€inqui tudes€auÐ h Ðsujet€de€la€solvabilit €de€plusieurs€locataires€et€de€certaines€obligations€fiscalesÏ ventuelles€deÏLeasing,€a€propos €une€op ration€par€laquelle€Leasing€formerait,€avec€certaines€filialesÏde€Central,€une€soci t €en€nom€collectif€qui€exercerait€les€m mes€activit s€que€Leasing,Ïtransf rerait€ses€ l ments€dð ðactif€Ô ‡ X •É X X X •É Ô €cette€soci t Ô # † X •É X X X •É® # Ô€„„€ €lð ðexception€des€baux€exclus€„„€enÐ Á ` Ðeffectuant€le€choix€pr vu€au€par.
ÐÔ_ Ôcertain€contingent€tax€liabilities€of€Leasing,€proposed€a€transaction€whereby€LeasingÏwould€form€a€partnership€with€several€Central€subsidiaries€to€carry€on€the€same€businessÏas€Leasing,€transfer€its€assets€other€than€the€excluded€leases€to€the€partnership€using€anÏelection€under€ñ  ñœñ  ñs.97(2)ñ  ñ›ñ  ñ€of€the€ò òIncome€Tax€Actó ó,€ñ  ñœñ  ñañ  ñ›ñ  ñ€rollover€provision,€ñ  ñœñ  ñdistributeñ  ñ›ñ  ñ€itsÐ 0 È Ðpartnership€interest€to€the€Bank€at€its€cost€base€as€part€of€its€winding„up,€and€then€haveÏthe€Bank€sell€its€interest€to€Central€or€its€subsidiaries.€€ñ  ñœñ  ñAñ  ñ›ñ  ñ€master€agreement€was€signedÏsetting€out€the€various€steps€ñ  ñœñ  ñto€be€executedñ  ñ›ñ  ñ€by€the€parties.€€The€partnership€was€formedÏon€December€24,€ñ  ñœñ  ñ1986;€all€partners,€except€Leasing,€gave€representations€and€warrantiesÏthat€they€were€and€would€remain€duly€registered€and€qualified€to€carry€on€the€businessÏof€the€partnership.ñ  ñ›ñ  ñ€ñ  ñœñ  ñ€Onñ  ñ›ñ  ñ€December€ñ  ñœñ  ñ27,ñ  ñ›ñ  ñ€Leasing€and€the€Bank€signed€an€indentureÏproviding€for€the€transfer€of€Leasingð ðs€partnership€interest€to€the€Bank.€€On€DecemberÏ29,€ñ  ñœñ  ñ1986,ñ  ñ›ñ  ñ€the€Bank€sold€the€interest€in€the€partnership€to€subsidiaries€of€Central.€€ñ  ñœñ  ñLeasingñ  ñ›ñ  ñÏfiled€its€income€tax€return€for€1987€based€on€these€transfers.€€The€Minister€of€NationalÏRevenue€reassessed€Leasing€on€the€basis€that€the€partnership€transaction€was€invalid€andÏthat€the€true€nature€of€the€transaction€was€a€disposition€by€Leasing€of€its€leasing€assetsÏto€Central,€making€the€ñ  ñœñ  ñs.97(2)ñ  ñ›ñ  ñ€election€invalid€and€giving€rise€to€recaptured€capital€costÏallowance€in€the€hands€of€Leasing.€€ñ  ñœñ  ñAsñ  ñ›ñ  ñ€an€alternative€to€the€reassessment€of€Leasing,€theÏMinister€assessed€the€Bank€on€the€basis€that€it€realized€an€income€gain€as€opposed€to€aÏcapital€gain€from€the€disposition€of€the€partnership€interest€it€had€acquired€from€Leasing.€Ïñ  ñœñ  ñTheñ  ñ›ñ  ñ€Tax€Court€of€Canada€concluded€that€the€Bank€properly€reported€the€proceeds€fromÏthe€sale€of€the€partnership€interest€as€a€capital€gain€and€was€not€required€to€include€thoseÏproceeds€on€its€income€account.€€ñ  ñœñ  ñThatñ  ñ›ñ  ñ€decision€was€affirmed€by€the€Federal€Court€ofÏAppeal.ÌÌà œ àò òHeldó ó:€€The€appeal€should€be€dismissed.Ð ¨,@&0 Ðâ âÐ @.Ø'2 Ðà œ àò òPeró ó€ñ  ñœñ  ñGonthier,€Cory,ñ  ñ›ñ  ñ€ñ  ñœñ  ñMcLachlin,ñ  ñ›ñ  ñ€Iacobucci€and€Major€JJ.:€€ñ  ñœñ  ñAssumingñ  ñ›ñ  ñ€that
Arrow 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Arrow