Search - connection

The applicant did not explain how this connection would cause him problems five years later when this was not the case in 2013. ...

These provisions read: 15. (2) A court of competent jurisdiction may, on application by either or both spouses, make an order requiring one spouse to secure or pay, or to secure and pay, such lump sum or periodic sums, or such lump sum and periodic sums, as the court thinks reasonable for the support of (a) the other spouse; (b) any or all children of the marriage; or (c) the other spouse and any or all children of the marriage. (4) The court may make an order under this section for a definite or indefinite period or until the happening of a specified event and may impose such other terms, considerations or restrictions in connection therewith as it thinks fit and just. ...

It is the Court's view that all of the criteria respecting the subsection are fulfilled except in relation to whether or not within the introductory portion of subparagraph 8(10)(b)(i) he was employed “in connection with a contract under which the specified employer carried on business in such country or countries other than Canada...”. ...

The Reply to Notice of Appeal, put the Respondent’s position in assessing as follows: — the Appellant retired from the Federal Civil Service in 1987 and started a consulting activity (the “Activity”), specializing as a consultant for the packaging and transportation of hazardous goods; — the Appellant’s chief source of income during the years under appeal consisted of superannuation income in the amounts of $34,689.84 in 1991, $34,767.98 in 1992 and $32,733.84 in 1993;- from 1987 to 1993 the Appellant reported the following losses from the Activity: Year Gross Revenue Total Expenses Net oss 1987 $1,670 $ 4,282 $(2,612) 1988 4,099 14,573 (10,474) 1989 7,804 17,414 (9,610) 1990 9,133 24,252 (15,119) 199] 6,290 17,376 (11,086) 1992 6,200 13,483 (7,283) 1993 5,660 9,234 (3,574) — the Appellant computed his net losses from the Activity for the years under appeal as follows (in round figures): 1991 1992 1993 Gross revenue $ 6290 $ 6.200$ 5.660 Expenses: Travel expense $ 7,936 $ 5,225$ 3,255 Car expenses 5,319 3,970 2,170 Office expenses 1,707 2,665 1,863 All other expenses 2.414 1,623 1.946 Total expenses $ 17.376 2.13.661 2.2.23 Net business losses $(11,086) 21.2.2311 $(3.574) — the Appellant operated his Activity from his residence, and the office expenses in paragraph 8(d) above constitute “work space in home” expenses; — Of the travel expense and car expenses shown in paragraph 8(d) of this document, the following amounts were expended by the Appellant in connection with personal trips to Florida: 1991 1992 Travel expense $2,494 $1,366 Car expenses 1.144 866 22,033 $2232 — the Appellant had no systematic plan or organized program to render the Activity profitable; The only point raised by the Appellant was that he had reported a profit in 1994 of some $1,600.00- the year subsequent to those under appeal, and expected to report a profit for the year 1995 also, and a draft 1995 financial statement was presented. ...

(the "company"); (c) for five and one-half months (169 days) during 1991, the company made a 1991 Buick Park Avenue automobile (the "automobile") available to the appellant; (d) for 12 months (365 days) during 1992, the company made the automobile available to the appellant; (e) the cost of the automobile to the company, exclusive of GST, licence and gas, was $37,758; (f) the appellant did not pay any amount to the company in either the 1991 or 1992 taxation years for the use of the automobile; (g) in the years under appeal the appellant did not pay any amounts to the company as reimbursement of expenditures related to the operation of the automobile; (h) the aggregate number of kilometres the automobile was driven by the appellant (otherwise than in connection with or in the course of his office or employment with the company) was not less that 5,500 km in 1991 and 12,000 km in 1992; (k) the standby charge for the automobile for the 1991 taxation year was calculated as follows: 27% x ($37,758.00 x 5 1\2) $4,153.00 G.S.T. on standby charge exclusive of provincial sales tax: 270 [($37,758.00- $2,796.88) x 5 1\2] x 7% 269.00 $4.422.00 (1) the standby charge for the 1992 taxation year was calculated as follows: 2% x ($37,758.00 x 12) $9,061.00 $9,061.00 G.S.T.: 2% x [($37,758.00- $2,796.88) x 12] x 7% 587,00 —S8.7.QQ $9,648.00 (m) the benefits in respect of the operating costs of the automobile were estimated by reference to subsection 6(2.2) of the Income Tax Act as follows: 989 1990 Benefit estimated at 1\2 standby charge* $2,076.00 $4,530.00 G.S.T. at 7% 145,00 317.00 $2,221.00 $4.847,00 (n) the total amounts referred to in paragraph 6 of this document, including automobile standby charges and benefits in respect of the operation of the Automobile, are to be included as income of the appellant from his employment with the company. ...

Finally, although this was not argued by the appellant, I find that the horse racing activities had no connection with the other activities of the company and the resources devoted by the appellant to the farming were not that substantial. ...

The plaintiff has been able to negotiate lower charges for fees with the Ottawa legal firm than she has with her legal connections in Toronto. ...

This type of appeal currently exists in the legislation in connection with delay in filing a notice of objection or notice of appeal within the prescribed period (section 167). ...

It appeared from evidence adduced by a witness for the respondent, even though her method used to arrive at this amount left some doubt as to its accuracy, that included in the $404.50 were the cost of meals that were not incurred in connection with entertaining clients. ...

The appellant had no connection in any manner with these contracts. Crowbar did all the bidding and negotiating for the work, performed the work with its own machinery and the "Cat", hired its own operators as well as paid all expenses. ...