Martland J. indicated (at p. 1253) that s. 24A of the 1948 Act "was essentially a provision dealing with onus of proof and deemed certain payments as therein defined to be payments within s. 5, unless the recipient could establish affirmatively that a payment did not reasonably fall within the provisions of paras. (i), (ii) or (iii) of s. 24A".
Topics and taglines
Topic
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
338453
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Curran v. MNR</em></strong>, 59 DTC 1247, [1959] S.C.R. 850",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Curran v. MNR</em></strong>, 59 DTC 1247, [1959] S.C.R. 850",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}