{"title":"杜哈印刷重访:关于公司控制的问题","authors":"Roger Taylor, Marie-Claude Marcil","doi":"10.32721/ctj.2022.70.3.taylor","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in Duha Printers. This was the first case dealing with the concept of de jure control of a corporation that the court had considered since its decision in Imperial General Properties in 1985. In Duha Printers, the court effectively restored the Buckerfield's test of control and set out a schematic basis for determining the person (if any) that controls a corporation at a particular time, and the evidentiary basis on which that person could be legally deprived of such control. The court's reasons for judgment raise a number of issues in respect of the concept of de jure control, including the scope of application of the decision, the continuing authority of the Supreme Court's two decisions previous to Duha Printers that appeared to have strayed from the Buckerfield's test of control, the limitation of the category of agreements that may be relevant to the control question, and the scope of and rationale for exceptions to that limitation. This article explores a number of de jure control issues decided or commented on by the court, and raised by the reasons for judgment, in Duha Printers.","PeriodicalId":375948,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Duha Printers Revisited: Issues Regarding Corporate Control\",\"authors\":\"Roger Taylor, Marie-Claude Marcil\",\"doi\":\"10.32721/ctj.2022.70.3.taylor\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in Duha Printers. This was the first case dealing with the concept of de jure control of a corporation that the court had considered since its decision in Imperial General Properties in 1985. In Duha Printers, the court effectively restored the Buckerfield's test of control and set out a schematic basis for determining the person (if any) that controls a corporation at a particular time, and the evidentiary basis on which that person could be legally deprived of such control. The court's reasons for judgment raise a number of issues in respect of the concept of de jure control, including the scope of application of the decision, the continuing authority of the Supreme Court's two decisions previous to Duha Printers that appeared to have strayed from the Buckerfield's test of control, the limitation of the category of agreements that may be relevant to the control question, and the scope of and rationale for exceptions to that limitation. This article explores a number of de jure control issues decided or commented on by the court, and raised by the reasons for judgment, in Duha Printers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":375948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32721/ctj.2022.70.3.taylor\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32721/ctj.2022.70.3.taylor","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
1998年,加拿大最高法院对杜哈印刷公司一案作出裁决。这是法院自1985年对Imperial General Properties一案作出判决以来,审理的第一起涉及公司法定控制权概念的案件。在Duha Printers一案中,法院有效地恢复了巴克菲尔德的控制权测试,并为确定在特定时间控制公司的人(如果有的话)以及该人可以在法律上被剥夺这种控制权的证据基础,制定了一个概要基础。法院的判决理由提出了有关法律上控制概念的若干问题,包括决定的适用范围、最高法院在Duha Printers案之前似乎偏离了巴克菲尔德控制标准的两项决定的持续权威、可能与控制问题有关的协议类别的限制、以及该限制的例外范围和理由。本文探讨了法院在Duha Printers一案中决定或评论的一些法律上的控制问题,以及由判决原因引起的问题。
Duha Printers Revisited: Issues Regarding Corporate Control
In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in Duha Printers. This was the first case dealing with the concept of de jure control of a corporation that the court had considered since its decision in Imperial General Properties in 1985. In Duha Printers, the court effectively restored the Buckerfield's test of control and set out a schematic basis for determining the person (if any) that controls a corporation at a particular time, and the evidentiary basis on which that person could be legally deprived of such control. The court's reasons for judgment raise a number of issues in respect of the concept of de jure control, including the scope of application of the decision, the continuing authority of the Supreme Court's two decisions previous to Duha Printers that appeared to have strayed from the Buckerfield's test of control, the limitation of the category of agreements that may be relevant to the control question, and the scope of and rationale for exceptions to that limitation. This article explores a number of de jure control issues decided or commented on by the court, and raised by the reasons for judgment, in Duha Printers.