Search - connection
Results 1121 - 1130 of 3270 for connection
TCC
Berry v. The Queen, 2005 TCC 787 (Informal Procedure)
Hart on the basis that he, too, incurs significant child support expenses in connection with the children's time with him, and on the basis that the child support is "the right of the child" and should follow the child. ...
TCC
Diana Williams Promotions Limited v. M.N.R., 2005 TCC 695, 2005 TCC 5
They do not want another employee, as such, but to have particular skills for a specific event and then to have no further connection to the Talent. ...
TCC
Pacific National Exhibition v. The Queen, 2004 TCC 823 (Informal Procedure)
In this connection I wish to note that the Notice of Appeal is 13 pages in length- single-spaced. ...
TCC
Buma v. The Queen, 2004 TCC 808 (Informal Procedure)
Buma's emotional bond with and her concern for her children remained as strong as in the previous period, but the notion of physical residency is something apart from that connection. ...
TCC
Richard Essery, sole proprietor v. The Queen, 2004 TCC 696 (Informal Procedure)
Richard Essery in connection with a goods and services tax (GST) assessment for the period April 1, 1998 to December 31, 2001. ...
TCC
Voykin v. The Queen, 2004 TCC 658 (Informal Procedure)
The work expended on or in connection with the property realized.- The Voykins put a lot of their own labour into the property. ...
TCC
Nesbitt v. The Queen, 2003 TCC 942 (Informal Procedure)
It deprives her of the innumerable cognitive skills that, while healthy, we take for granted but without which, we lose any meaningful connection to the world. [17] In Ms. ...
TCC
Jauvin v. The Queen, 2003 TCC 834 (Informal Procedure)
In this connection, Dickson C.J., writing for the Court in Bronfman Trust, supra, closely analysed the third element of the interest deductibility provision and classified the various possible uses of borrowed money as: eligible and ineligible, original and current, and direct and indirect. ...
TCC
Kitura v. The Queen, 2003 TCC 892 (Informal Procedure)
Kitura has taken eight of nine courses towards his MBA at CCU since starting the program. [4] The relevant legislation in connection with the LLP is as follows: 146.02(1) The definitions in this subsection apply in this section. ...
TCC
Deveau v. The Queen, 2003 TCC 64 (Informal Procedure)
The Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact, which were admitted or denied by the Appellant as indicated: (b) at all relevant times the Appellant had a contract (the "Contract") with Gosine Sulley & Associates to provide computer services to NBTel in Saint John, New Brunswick; (denied) (c) at all relevant times the Appellant was carrying on a business of providing computer services; (admitted) (d) at all relevant times the Appellant's home was in Moncton, New Brunswick; (admitted) (e) the Contract specified that an office was to be made available to the Appellant at NBTel's premises in Saint John; (admitted) (f) the Contract specified that all supplies and services, including secretarial services, required to perform the services under the Contract would be supplied to the Appellant by NBTel; (admitted) (g) the Contract did not require the Appellant to maintain an office in his home in Moncton; (denied) (h) the Appellant maintained an office in his home in Moncton; (admitted) (i) the Appellant was required under the terms of the Contract to provide the services at NBTel's premises on all business days for 7 1/2 hours per day; (denied) (j) the Contract required the Appellant to be responsible for all living and travel expenses associated with the performance of the Contract in the city of Saint John, but any reasonable travel expenses incurred in connection with the performance of the Appellant's services outside the Saint John area would be reimbursed by NBTel; (admitted) (k) the expenses disallowed were all in relation to the expenses the Appellant incurred in travelling back and forth from his home in Moncton to NBTel's office in Saint John, as well as his living accommodations while in Saint John; (denied) (l) the expenses noted in subparagraph 11(k) above were personal expenses of the Appellant; (denied) [3] The Appellant began working as an employee in the computer industry in 1996. ...