Respondent’s Submissions. The Respondent submitted that the Partnership sold the sites the subject matter of this appeal to individual purchasers. The Respondent submitted that the available documentation and in particular the various Memoranda of Agreement which are available show that the Partnership, and not the Company, sold the sites to individual purchasers. As a result the Respondent submitted that the Partnership was liable to income tax on the profits which arose from the sale of the sites.
Respondent’s Submissions. 2008 FCA 212 (CanLII) [26] The respondent submits that Xxxxx J. was correct in finding that any adverse impacts on the appellants’ rights were limited and that the duty to consult pertained only to the appellants’ commercial right to fish. With respect to the appellants’ FSC rights, the respondent argues that the Pilot Plan does not impact these rights, as any allocations for such rights were to be made before any allocations were made to the commercial sector. Hence, the respondent submits that the Judge was correct in concluding that the appellants’ FSC rights would not be impacted by the implementation of the Pilot Plan because there was no “meaningful impact” on these rights. Furthermore, the respondent submits that any impact on the treaty process does not trigger a duty to consult. [27] With respect to the scope of the duty to consult, the respondent submits that the Judge correctly determined that that duty lies at the lower end of the spectrum, since the adverse impacts on the appellants’ commercial right to fish were limited. Indeed, according to the respondent, it was not shown that there would be any alteration of the Fisheries or high risk of non-compensable damages resulting from the Pilot Plan. The respondent says that the appellants incorrectly submit that the Judge based his finding with respect to the scope of the duty on the fact that a commercial right was at issue and that any impact was justified because the goal of the Pilot Plan was conservation. Rather, the Judge based his finding on the fact that the only alleged right impacted was a commercial right and that the impacts on this right would be limited, because of, amongst other things, the conservation aspect of the Pilot Plan. 2008 FCA 212 (CanLII) [28] While the respondent admits that the consultations did not conclude to the satisfaction of the appellants before the Minister made his decision, he submits that Xxxxx J. correctly concluded that there was no breach of the duty to consult, pointing out that there was no requirement that the consultations conclude to the satisfaction of the First Nations and that the reason why the consultations had not concluded was due in part to the appellants’ conduct. The respondent further submits that the appellants’ position on IQs had crystallized by the time of the bilateral meetings in February 2006 and according to Taku, supra, consultations can terminate at this point. The respondent also submits that the urgency of making a decision in ...
Respondent’s Submissions. The Respondent argues that its claim is against the negligent action of the 1st Applicant, the Liquidator, in allowing the whole of the monies in the Ferrari Account to be transferred to the 2nd Applicant’s account.
Respondent’s Submissions. The Respondent did not adduce any witness evidence at the oral hearing.
Respondent’s Submissions. The following is a summary of the submissions made both in writing and orally to the Commissioner on behalf of the Respondent. The Commissioner has had regard to all of the submissions whether written, oral or documentary received when considering this determination.
Respondent’s Submissions. [26] Xx. Xxxxxx submitted that the appellant
Respondent’s Submissions. [26] Xx. Xxxxxx submitted that the appellant was laid off under section 3(1)(b)
