Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The SCC's statement that an arm's-length price can fall within an acceptable range of prices has also been seen as significant, and consistent with the 2010 OECD transfer pricing guidelines, as it appears to be contrary to the long-standing policy of the Canada Revenue Agency to express a preference for unweighted yearly averages of comparators ...
Attorney-General for Ontario v Attorney-General of Canada (Reference Appeal) (Ontario, Canada) [1912] A.C. 571 Royal Bank of Canada v. The King [1913] A.C. 283 Canada v. Alberta [3] [1922] A.C. 191 Emergency doctrine of Constitution of Canada Fort Frances Pulp and Paper v. Manitoba Free Press (1923)
Hitzig v. Canada (2003) 231 DLR (4th) 104, 177 CCC (3d) 449; Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden (2006), 79 OR (3d) 401, 267 DLR (4th) 37; Indalex Limited (Re), 2011 ONCA 265 - priority of claims of pension fund in a company bankruptcy; leave to appeal granted by the Supreme Court of Canada, December 1, 2011. [1] Bedford v.
This is a comprehensive list of cases originating in Canada decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in Britain.. From 1867 to 1949, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was the highest court of appeal for Canada (and, separately, for Newfoundland, which did not join Canada as a province until 1949).
Typically this is expressed as a range higher or lower as compared with the point estimate with an expected probability that the actual cost will fall in the range. [16] An example for a definitive estimate might be that the estimate has a -5/+10% range of accuracy with a 90% confidence that the final value will fall in that range.
Canada (Deputy Minister of National Revenue) v. Mattel Canada Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 100; 2001 SCC 36 : February 20, 2000 June 7, 2001 Committee for the Equal Treatment of Asbestos Minority Shareholders v. Ontario (Securities Commission), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 132; 2001 SCC 37 : December 15, 2000 June 7, 2001 McKinley v.
The common law of business balance, often expressed as "you get what you pay for", is the principle that one cannot pay a little and get a lot.That is, paying a cheap price will not guarantee the buyer will receive a product of high quality value.
In process improvement efforts, quality costs tite or cost of quality (sometimes abbreviated CoQ or COQ [1]) is a means to quantify the total cost of quality-related efforts and deficiencies. It was first described by Armand V. Feigenbaum in a 1956 Harvard Business Review article.