Arouet wrote:OMG, why must you respond in a manner that makes my eyes bleed and makes it really hard to separate your
response from my post. Please use the quote tags [quote ] [/quote ] (remove spaces) makes it much easier.
Seeing as you request something of me i'll return the favor and request when you quote my replies please do not add your own
quote as part of the quote you are indicating was me, it is incorrect regardless of wether it is intentional or not. On the
original note I was not aware of your colour blindness, either that or opening your eyes every morning must invoke an episode
of eye bleeding due to all the colours, horrible really. I'll simply assume you're colour blind.
Arouet wrote:No. You misunderstood what you were reading and I explained where you were off.
No. You misunderstand what the word person includes regarding canadian law, I explained where you were off as does the act in
the definitions section.
Arouet wrote:Ok Lurkers: if you are interested in having me go through once again the legal minutia of this topic, please
make an account and post! If you're not interested, please also make an account and post.
If someone read this far and created an account just to post the words not interested, wouldn't they have had to been
interested enough to make the post? Just use the post counter it's not self defeating like your idea is.
Arouet wrote:I've explained that a business corporation IS a legal person.
As is an individual, which i've explained to you and the legislation has stated this as well. You have not explained how a
business is an individual. An individual can be in a business but an individual is not actually a business.
Arouet wrote:And that that is the type of legal person who would be getting a certificate under this act
Only persons who are not non-eligible can apply for the certificate with certain provisions provided, it says nothing about
restrictions other than this, please, please, please prove me wrong. Very easy for you to do, just post the section of the
act that differentiates what category of persons this act affects. Perhaps it's in the regulations? Simply point it out and
prove me wrong. Quit stalling and make your point!
Arouet wrote:But don't take my word for it. Contact the government as a human person and see if you can get a
Don't take my word for it, read section 19 of the canadian ownership and control determination act 1985 on the department of
justice website which says this information is an evidentiary privilege. (even though the act itself is evidence.) Who wrote
this section? Was it... the government?!?!?!?
Arouet wrote:If they didn't understand the law they should consult someone who does.
So you completely ignore the fact that even a trusted confident cannot give the gift of knowledge, one has to learn for
themself. Why on earth should I trust anothers word when I can find out for myself? I understand english very easy, the law
is written in english with definitions provided, this isn't rocket science, how do you manage to garble it all up so badly?
Arouet wrote:You have consulted me, for example, a lawyer.
I disagree. What I did was post my thoughts in a forum thread designed for this topic. If anything you consulted me about my
understanding of this act based on the legislation itself, why you disagree with the governments position remains a mystery.
Arouet wrote:IF you don't accept the interpretation I have given I have suggested that you contact someone else who
understands the law
How shall I contact myself? Please elaborate this unique thought of yours. Why would I contact other lawyers when I got one
in front of me (so to speak) who cannot understand the difference between the word business and person? It is laughable.
Arouet wrote: - preferably a lawyer and even more preferably a corporate lawyer (which I am not).. I'm sure you must know
a lawyer or two, whether IRL or on one forum or another. Ask them to interpret the act, and look at the sources we have here
and see if their interpretation differs from mine.
Argument from authority? If the entire planet believed that the sun revolved around the earth what would consulting an
"authority" on the matter prove? I believe the person who disrupted your argument many years ago was named Galileo.
Arouet wrote:The problem is you don't know enough to know why you are wrong.
I apply this statement to you, the non-corporate lawyer attempting to make sense of corporate-trust legislation outside of
his trained comprehension who cannot even properly differentiate between the words business and person.
Arouet wrote: What would be clear to someone with a legal background might not be clear to a lay person.
Exactly! I suggest you read the business corporations act and begin to obtain a grasp on the fundaments of corporate
structure, what an excellent way to begin your legal background in corporate law!
Arouet wrote: You don't have the background to understand what you are reading.
Funny how is it that i'm able to respond to you? Is the law written in english/french or not?
Arouet wrote:You are not alone - most people get completely lost reading legislation. That's why lawyers are necessary in
the first place.
Even the ones who cannot distiguish between a business and a person according to law? Amazing. I didn't think learning the
english language even required a lawyer. Just to confirm, did you consult a lawyer in your english class in elementary
school? Excuse me if I don't believe you if your answer is yes. You'll have to forgive me on that. Your statement is so
Arouet wrote:Ummm, no. We're not discussion metaphysics here. We're discussing legislation. It's nothing like religious
Asking me to simply "believe" in you or anyone else instead of obtaining the knowledge from the source is like asking me to
believe in anything else without proof, just...like...religion. Sorry I don't believe you, you'll have to prove it to me and
that is going to be difficult for you to do when your intepretations are not supported by the act. I apologize for being so
stubborn however surely you would prefer a rational discussion over a zealous tell me what to think attitude? I may be wrong
on that as you continue to direct me to more figures of "authority" and continue to advise against reading the act as if it
was not written in english but it appears you do not want to get "into it" with me you would rather shluff your own ignorance
off as someone elses ignorance, it is not, it belongs to you sir.
Arouet wrote:I really don't think I have dodged any of your questions, but if you think I haven't addresed one of your
points above, please repost them.
Where in the canadian ownership and control determination act 1985 publicly displayed on the department of justice website
does it diferentiate between the certain types of persons affected by this legislation besides the non-eligible and not
Arouet wrote:Well, I have acknowledged that I am not an expert in corporate law and probably have some of the finer points
wrong, but I'm fairly confident in my overall assessment of this legislation and its purpose. But if your friends want to
come into this conversation let them come in and correct me. Are any of these people lawyers though? I would be more
interested in their opinion on this if they were.
The finer points being that for the greater certainy a seperate trust exists in respect of all assets property and
investments hmmm? Are any of these people I speak of familiar with the english language? Yes they are. Something which you
are not apparently. business=person. Hmm yes yes I see your point... ummm nevermind no I don't and neither does the law or
anyone else who's read this topic that understands english.
Arouet wrote:A business corporation is a type of legal person. So is a business partnership. A sole proprietorship does
not exist as a separate person but is invested in the actual person.
Person here is a legal term. Not a person as in "human" though a human is of course a legal person too.
Actually person is defined in this act with the inclusion of the word individual which just happens to be synonymous with a
human being. Where is this not the case in this act? Also as an added note, putting the word business in front of the words
corporation or partnership doesnt change the defintion of partnership or corporation, however placing the word business in
front of human being or individual looks rather silly doesn't it Arouet? A sole proprietorship is a type of business, not a
type of person, you need a business liscense to obtain a sole proprietorship, you do not need a business liscense to be a
human being/individual. I can see why you get so confused with corporate law.
Arouet wrote:Yes. Precisely. Figuring out whether a business is canadian owned or not is a pretty dry topic. Much of law
is pretty dry though.
If it is such a dry topic why am I interested in it then? Why does the viewcounter continue going up? Certainly that is only
your veiwpoint, and a dry one at that.
Arouet wrote:There was a crisis going on that affected the entire economy so it was geared towards helping everyone though
it also pitted rich people from one side of the country against rich people on the other side of the country. It is debatable
whether it acheived that goal or not. But again, you're thinking of a fictional version of the legislation. I agree if your
interpretation was correct it would be a very interesting piece of legislation indeed. Actaully, to many it was interesting
legislation as the national energy proram enraged many and there is still resentment about it today.
I don't see how severing ownership and control of all of your assets, investments and property helps everyone? Wouldn't the
beneficial owners be the ones benefitting? How are unknown beneficial owners of your property, assets and investments helping
Arouet wrote:I've said fixated since this seems to be the only topic you want to discuss. And we did discuss it in detail.
I've asked you if you had any other topics you want to talk about but you haven't brought any up.
No you have not explained how the definition of business includes an individual, lot of talk, no explaining from you yet, why
not simply prove me wrong? Wouldn't that be so satisfying at this point Arouet? Just prove the man wrong. I'm waiting to be
proved wrong. Why not do it?
Arouet wrote:Well, I said a business is a person. But in a sole proprietorship indeed the person is the business.
No the business is the business, the person is the person, the person who owns the sole proprietorship pays the taxes but is
not defined as the business itself. The business is owned by the person, big difference there bud.
Arouet wrote:I haven't dodged you. Many types of businesses, such as a corporation, are legal persons. This is a pretty
non-controversial point. Corporate and Civil law are founded on it.
Yes you have but now this time you espouse that a sole proprietorship is an actual legal person. It is not.
Arouet wrote:As I said above: a business is a person. There is no provision of the act which excludes businesses from the
definition of legal person.
the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act 1985 wrote:“person” means an individual, a corporation, a
partnership, a trust, a government, an agency of government, a segregated fund within the meaning of the regulations and an
organization that is prescribed as being a person or that falls into a class of organizations prescribed as being
Except the definition of person does not include a business in this act, too bad so sad for you that a sole proprietorship is
not a legal person and doesn't fall into a class of organizations prescribed as being persons, otherwise you would have alot
of an easier time convincing me hey bro?
So where in this act does it differentiate enforcement between an individual person and a fictional person regarding control
status and ownership?
Answer= It doesn't.
I'm afraid you simply don't understand how corporate trusts operate in canada arouet. Good luck in life sir!