| |
|
AGREEMENTS............6
|
| the Purchase Agreements , the Aircraft and the Leases to an Ontario partnership . . .. Air | 314 |
| Canada consented to the sale and assignment of the Purchase Agreements , the Aircraft and the | 314 |
| Agreements , the Aircraft and the Leases by Leasing to the Partnership. | 316 |
| verbal agreements or from an overt act indicating the intention to form an undeclared | 548 |
| out a common project. Such agreements may be short-term or extend over several years. | 758 |
| performed by any of them that are necessary to carry out the venture. Agreements between the | 808 |
| |
|
AID...................1
|
| suppletive basis, aid in determining whether or not an entity is a legal person; rather, its view is | 1208 |
| |
|
AIR...................3
|
| contained in a letter dated December , from Air Canada, one of the Bank's customers. | 312 |
| In the letter, Air Canada acknowledges that Leasing intends to sell and assign its interest in | 312 |
| the Purchase Agreements, the Aircraft and the Leases to an Ontario partnership . . .. Air | 314 |
| |
|
AIRCRAFT..............3
|
| the Purchase Agreements, the Aircraft and the Leases to an Ontario partnership . . .. Air | 314 |
| Canada consented to the sale and assignment of the Purchase Agreements, the Aircraft and the | 314 |
| Agreements, the Aircraft and the Leases by Leasing to the Partnership. | 316 |
| |
|
AL....................4
|
| Porter Sons Ltd. v. Armstrong et al ., S.C.R. ; Sproule v. McConnel, | 1532 |
| Caisse populaire Laurier v. - Quebec Inc. et al ., supra, note . | 1830 |
| Porter Sons Ltd v. Armstrong et al ., supra, note , at p. (emphasis added); | 1868 |
| A.E. LePage Ltd v. Kamex Developments Ltd et al ., supra, note . | 1868 |
| |
|
ALBEIT................1
|
| profit, e.g., tax avoidance, but there is also a real, albeit ancillary, profit element, it may be | 410 |
| |
|
ALBERTA...............9
|
| Purpose Inspired by the American experience, the Ontario and Alberta legislatures | 708 |
| Alberta legislation expressly sets out this rule. The Alberta Law Reform Institute has | 728 |
| Alberta legislation expressly sets out this rule. The Alberta Law Reform Institute has | 728 |
| Labrador); Partnerships Act, R.S.A. . c. P- ( Alberta ). | 1500 |
| Alberta (trading, manufacturing, contracting or mining purposes); British Columbia and | 1628 |
| Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Alberta . | 1630 |
| Alberta Law Reform Institute, Limited Liability Partnerships, Final Report, No. | 1654 |
| ALBERTA LAW REFORM INSTITUTE, op. cit., note , p. . | 1862 |
| ALBERTA LAW REFORM INSTITUTE, op. cit., note , p. . | 1864 |
| |
|
ALIA..................1
|
| ventures and partnerships. These two institutions were subject to different rules, inter alia as | 836 |
| |
|
ALIEN.................1
|
| or alien , he has the full enjoyment of civil rights, except as otherwise expressly provided by | 1786 |
| |
|
ALIENATION............1
|
| respects as to its administration, its acquisition and its alienation , to certain rules and formalities | 1792 |
| |
|
ALLARD................17
|
| Ville de Quebec v. Cie dImmeubles Allard Ltée In June , after more than a | 978 |
| If the position of the majority judges in Allard is accepted, there will no longer be any distinction | 1042 |
| impossible to integrate the collective ownership proposed by the majority in Allard . It is | 1072 |
| Allard constituted a minority position under the C.C.L.C. For a hundred years, the courts had | 1082 |
| Allard and deny partnerships legal personality under the C.C.Q., it is impossible to be in favour | 1086 |
| other decisions rely on Allard and deny partnerships patrimonial autonomy on the contention | 1158 |
| partnerships have patrimonial autonomy. The third decision is based on Allard and the | 1168 |
| rejected the majority opinion of the Court of Appeal in Allard and recognized the legal | 1226 |
| Relying instead on Biron J.A.'s dissent in Allard , the Court felt that, given the new legal | 1234 |
| noted that Allard was decided in a context totally different from that of the C.C.Q., a majority | 1260 |
| Québec (Ville de) v. Cie dimmeules Allard Ltée, R.J.Q. (C.A.). | 1492 |
| Quebec (Ville de) v. Cie dimmeubles Allard Ltée, supra, note . | 1780 |
| Quebec (Ville de) v. Cie dimmeubles Allard Ltée, supra, note , p. . | 1794 |
| Quebec (Ville de) v. Cie dimmeubles Allard Ltée, supra, note , p. . | 1798 |
| Quebec (Ville de) v. Cie dimmeubles Allard Ltée, supra, note , p. . | 1804 |
| Ville de Quebec v. Cie dimmeubles Allard Ltée, supra, note . | 1840 |
| ville de Quebec v. La Cie dimmeubles Allard Ltée (Canadian Bar Association, March , | 1872 |
| |
|
ALLEGED...............1
|
| there must be acts clearly showing that each of the alleged partners intended to form a contract | 550 |
| |
|
ALLOCATED.............1
|
| realisable benefits, whether they are distributed at the end of financial year or allocated to | 100 |
| |
|
ALLOW.................2
|
| should allow third persons to retain the same rights as in the case of a general partnership. | 468 |
| under the C.C.L.C. The unitary concept of patrimony did not allow for a type of ownership | 1062 |
| |
|
ALLOWED...............1
|
| -- (appeal allowed C.A.M. No. ---, April , ), J.E. - | 1722 |
| |
|
ALLÉE.................1
|
| Royal Bank of Canada v. Meyers, supra, note ; Hôtel de la Grande Allée Inc. v. | 1724 |
| |
|
ALTA..................2
|
| Insurance Corp. v. Canadian Commercial Bank, S.C.R. , Alta . L.R. (d) | 1540 |
| Alta . L.R. (d) , A.R. , W.W.R. (C.A.), at pp. -; Pooley v. | 1542 |
| |
|
ALTERNATIVE...........1
|
| creditors may also seize the property, in which case the other partners' only alternative will be to | 574 |
| |
|
AMBIGUITY.............1
|
| Civil Code, and there seems to be no ambiguity about the domination of the fiction doctrine. | 1122 |
| |
|
AMEND.................1
|
| In Quebec province see, An Act to amend the Professional Code and other | 1648 |
| |
|
AMENDED...............3
|
| amended their Partnership Acts in to include limited liability partnerships. The | 708 |
| Partnerships Act, R.S.O. , c. P., as amended by S.O. , c. ; Partnership | 1646 |
| Act, R.S.A. , c. P-, as amended by Bill , . | 1648 |
| |
|
AMERICAN..............7
|
| Purpose Inspired by the American experience, the Ontario and Alberta legislatures | 708 |
| Joint ventures are a creature of the American courts and were imported, with some variations, | 764 |
| of joint ventures is similar to the American s and they both tend to distinguish the two concepts, | 784 |
| why the American courts have tried to distinguish the two types of unions or associations. | 792 |
| American law The mental gymnastics are not easy, and there is no unanimity about it. The | 794 |
| clearly be seen in the rules developed by the American courts. | 802 |
| were facilitated by the extreme flexibility of North American law on business associations. | 860 |
| |
|
AMEUBLEMENT...........3
|
| en nom collectif Vausko v. Ameublement et décoration Côté-Sud (St-Denis), which | 1226 |
| Société en nom collectif Vausko v. Ameublement et décoration Côté-Sud (St- | 1838 |
| Société en nom collectif Vausko v. Ameublement et décoration Côté-Sud (St- | 1842 |
| |
|
AMONGST...............1
|
| looks to the partners composing it; any change amongst them destroys the identity of the firm; | 1326 |
| |
|
AMOUNTS...............2
|
| adventure amounts to a business for the purposes of the Act. | 290 |
| amounts payable or moveable effects, and all shares or interests in financial, commercial or | 1740 |
| |
|
AMPLE.................2
|
| rendered its first decision on this question with ample reasons that took issue with the | 980 |
| aside by a split decision, no matter how ample the support provided for it. | 1084 |
| |
|
ANALOGOUS.............1
|
| of partnership and not some other contract that may be more or less analogous to a | 550 |
| |
|
ANALYSED..............2
|
| Case law The definition of partnership was analysed by the Supreme Court of Canada in | 212 |
| the partners were carrying on a business in common, the Supreme Court analysed the facts to | 386 |
| |
|
ANALYSIS..............9
|
| is one to resolve this paradox using traditional analysis when even the Court of Appeal in a | 52 |
| Therefore, it becomes necessary to conduct a comparative analysis of civil law and common | 58 |
| Based on an analysis of academic commentary, only one of these factors is truly decisive: | 798 |
| interrelated. That is why, to deal with the former question, our analysis will consider the latter as | 1020 |
| and this is where the judges would have been well advised to pursue their analysis . What is | 1066 |
| analysis , characterize the legal persons. If the courts were able to find that the C.C.L.C.'s civil | 1150 |
| MFQ-Vie, which does not begin its analysis with the question of separate patrimony but deals | 1178 |
| From the standpoint of the traditional analysis , the paradox is striking: on the one hand, the | 1218 |
| persons because of the necessary connection according to classic academic analysis | 1430 |
| |
|
ANCILLARY.............4
|
| not preclude profit-making as a potential ancillary purpose. This was sufficient to satisfy the | 408 |
| profit, e.g., tax avoidance, but there is also a real, albeit ancillary , profit element, it may be | 410 |
| taxpayer to show that there was an ancillary profit-making purpose. The law of partnership | 426 |
| that a partnership exists, but also all activities the ancillary purpose of which is to make a profit. | 432 |
| |
|
ANGLO-SAXON...........5
|
| light of the Anglo-Saxon experience (B), that such a question is specific to the Romano- | 894 |
| fundamental change in the doctrine of ownership in civil law, which unlike under Anglo-Saxon | 944 |
| the matter (a). Anglo-Saxon law, the solutions of which are more pragmatic, accepted very | 1316 |
| Anglo-Saxon law, including the approach taken in the common law provinces, recognizes | 1446 |
| Following the example of Germanic and Anglo-Saxon law, general and limited partnerships | 1480 |