Search - connection

LAW [8]   Subparagraphs 8(1)(c)(iii) & (iv) of the Act read as follows: Deductions Allowed 8 (1) In computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from an office or employment, there may be deducted… Clergy residence (c)…the amount, not exceeding the taxpayer’s remuneration for the year from the office or employment, equal to (iii) the total of all amounts including amounts in respect of utilities, included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year under section 6 in respect of the residence or other living accommodation occupied by the taxpayer in the course of, or because of, the taxpayer’s office or employment as such a member or minister so in charge of or ministering to a diocese, parish or congregation, or so engaged in such administrative service, or (iv) rent and utilities paid by the taxpayer for the taxpayer’s principal place of residence (or other principal living accommodation), ordinarily occupied during the year by the taxpayer, or the fair rental value of such a residence (or other living accommodation), including utilities, owned by the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse or common-law partner, not exceeding the lesser of (A) the greater of (I) $1,000 multiplied by the number of months (to a maximum of ten) in the year, during which the taxpayer is a person described in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), and (II) one-third of the taxpayer’s remuneration for the year from the office or employment, and (B) the amount, if any, by which (I) the rent paid or the fair rental value of the residence or living accommodation, including utilities exceeds (II) the total of all amounts each of which is an amount deducted, in connection with the same accommodation or residence, in computing an individual’s income for the year from an office or employment or from a business (other than an amount deducted under this paragraph by the taxpayer), to the extent that the amount can reasonably be considered to relate to the period, or a portion of the period, in respect of which an amount is claimed by the taxpayer under this paragraph; ANALYSIS Standard of Statutory Interpretation [9]   As previously noted, the issue before the Court is whether the Appellant can claim clergy residence deductions under both subparagraphs 8(1)(c)(iii) and 8(1)(c)(iv). ...

I find that the comments in Lewis, at paragraph 90, are equally applicable, adjusted for these facts, and are most appropriate to address that finding:- the assumption that Zariyah could return to Canada is pure speculation and therefore unreasonable;- the Officer does not explain how it would be feasible for Zariyah to make the journey back to Canada on her own, and there is no suggestion that anyone else would be able to accompany her; and- more importantly, given her mother’s age, economic circumstances, skill set, lack of connections in St. ...

Hafamo was interviewed in connection with the application on August 24, 2018, by an Immigration Officer from the High Commission of Canada in Pretoria. [2]   In a letter dated August 29, 2018, the Officer refused the application because the Officer found Mr. ...

He believed the union could find him through the Social Security system by using their extensive connections. ...

The RPD found that the reason the Applicants alleged being targeted was in connection with the October 2013 extortion demand by criminals to their son Carlos, who was trying to set up a business in Buenaventura. ...

As the Panel noted, the duty to assess evidence in its best possible light and to the benefit of an applicant does not eliminate the applicant’s burden of demonstrating a significant causal connection between her medical condition and military service. ...

The Respondent concedes that such letter is not mandatory, but argues that nonetheless, the Applicant bears the onus to convince the Officer of the genuineness of the purpose of his visit to Canada, and that he will leave at the end of his stay. [29]   The Respondent argues that the Officer could legitimately question the Applicant’s plans as a student since there is no connection between the studies the Applicant was planning to undertake in Canada and the ones he had completed in his country. [30]   In light of the above, the Respondent submits that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the decision-maker erred in law, made perverse findings of fact without regard to the evidence, or breached procedural fairness. ...

Other mechanisms exist for deterring misconduct in connection with the removal process, including arrest and detention.   ...

APPENDIX First Nations Elections Act, S.C. 2014, c. 5 Loi sur les élections au sein de premières nations, L.C. 2014, ch. 5 Prohibition — any person Interdictions générales 16 A person must not, in connection with an election, 16 Nul ne peut, relativement à une élection : (a) vote or attempt to vote knowing that they are not entitled to vote; a) voter ou tenter de voter sachant qu’il est inhabile à voter; (b) attempt to influence another person to vote knowing that the other person is not entitled to do so; b) inciter une autre personne à voter sachant que celle-ci est inhabile à voter; (c) knowingly use a forged ballot; c) faire sciemment usage d’un faux bulletin de vote; (d) put a ballot into a ballot box knowing that they are not authorized to do so under the regulations; d) déposer dans une urne un bulletin de vote sachant qu’il n’y est pas autorisé par règlement; (e) by intimidation or duress, attempt to influence another person to vote or refrain from voting or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate; or e) par intimidation ou par la contrainte, inciter une autre personne à voter ou à s’abstenir de voter, ou encore à voter ou à s’abstenir de voter pour un candidat donné; (f) offer money, goods, employment or other valuable consideration in an attempt to influence an elector to vote or refrain from voting or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate. f) offrir de l’argent, des biens, un emploi ou toute autre contrepartie valable en vue d’inciter un électeur à voter ou à s’abstenir de voter, ou encore à voter ou à s’abstenir de voter pour un candidat donné. ...

I agree. [23]   In this connection, the Federal Court of Appeal determined that an inference of abandonment may be drawn where a mark has not been used for a long period; Iwasaki Electric Co Ltd v Hortilux Schreder BV, 2012 FCA 321 per Blais, Sharlow and Webb JJA at para 21 [Iwasaki]: As noted above, abandonment of a trade-mark is not determined based solely on a person ceasing to use that trade-mark. ...