Search - connection

In connection with the statement in paragraph 5(i) to the effect that the Appellant's president reported to work at the Appellant's offices every day, Mr. ... In connection with paragraphs 5(o) and 5(v), the Workers worked on the Appellant's premises, but also at home in the evening. ...

The Appellant's and the Payers' cellular telephones were also used for business purposes. [8]      It was shown that the Appellant's work schedule was flexible and varied depending on the Appellant, provided that her duties were carried out. [9]      The presumption in paragraph (m) was true as of the date of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, that is, as of November 13, 2001. [10]     In connection with the Minister's presumption in paragraphs (f) and (n), which describe the impact of this refusal, the Appellant put forward a motion to reopen the matter with a view to enabling the Appellant to provide proof to refute the content of paragraph (f). [11]     This unusual motion was granted by the Court after the parties' arguments were heard. [12]     It was made clear at the outset when the matter was reopened that the parties could not provide evidence or arguments that exceeded the parameters of the presumption of fact set out by the Minister in paragraph 5(f) of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal which reads as follows: [translation] the Payer refused on several occasions to provide documents required for the Respondent's investigation. [13]     The documentation provided by the Payers' counsel, M e Masson, consisted of a letter he and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) exchanged between May 28 and August 24, 2001. [14]     In her letter of May 28, 2001, to M e Masson, Lyne Courcy, CCRA appeals officer, asked the Payers to provide certain documents, including income and expenditure records, bank statements and financial statements for Réno-Concept C.T. and 9089-4114 Québec Inc. for 1999 and 2000. [15]     When counsel for the Payers received this letter, he questioned the relevance of the requested documents. ... In any case, I find that the Minister had sufficient information to be able to render his decision. [22]     An analysis of these facts shows that the Appellant's position is not in keeping with the principle established in Berthiaume (supra). [23]     This Court must therefore conclude in connection with the foregoing that the Appellant did not prove that paragraph 5(f) of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal was false. [24]     The Appellant was paid $480 a week regardless of the number of hours she worked. ...

Put conversely, subsection 252(4) only acts retrospectively to relationships prior to 1993 in connection with payments made pursuant to agreements or orders made after 1992; that is, made after the new legislation was in effect. [16]     Associate Chief Judge Bowman summarized the difficulty with interpreting these provisions as follows: [20]       I have set out the conflicting interpretations arrived at after careful analysis by experienced and respected judges of this court. ... Without deviating from the result in Girard or Hunter, I find subsection 252(4) applies retrospectively in determining the deduction or inclusion of support payments only to payments made pursuant to agreements or orders entered after 1992 in connection with breakdowns of marriage prior to 1993. ...

(v) reasonable allowances for travel expenses received by an employee from the employee's employer in respect of a period when the employee was employed in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts for the employee's employer,... (vii.1) reasonable allowances for the use of a motor vehicle received by an employee (other than an employee employed in connection with the selling of property or the negotiating of contracts for the employer) from the employer for travelling in the performance of the duties of the office or employment. [11]     Here, the Minister accepted the fact that the per-kilometre allowance given to the appellant for the number of kilometres driven by her- as submitted to her employer- in the performance of her duties was woefully inadequate. ...

"tax shelter" means any property in respect of which it may reasonably be considered having regard to statements or representations made or proposed to be made in connection with the property that, if a person were to acquire an interest in the property, at the end of any particular taxation year ending within 4 years after the day on which the interest is acquired, (a) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is (i) a loss represented to be deductible in computing income in respect of the interest in the property and expected to be incurred by or allocated to the person for the particular year or any preceding taxation year......                                     ... [Emphasis added.] [12]     The evidence adduced by the respondent clearly establishes that the partnership interests were property in respect of which it might reasonably be considered having regard to statements or representations made or proposed to be made in connection with the property that, if a person were to acquire an interest in the property, the amount of a loss represented to be deductible in computing income "would exceed" the cost of the partnership interest. ...

Franchisee acknowledges and agrees that the right and license granted to it herein are non-exclusive and are granted for use only at the Franchised Store at the Premises, and such grant shall not in any way hinder or prevent Franchisor from granting additional rights and licenses as it, in its sole discretion may determine, to any person, firm, partnership, corporation or other entity (including Franchisor itself) for the use of the Trade Marks and/or the System elsewhere than at the Premises. 3.3        Subject to the provisions of paragraph 9.1.13 hereof, Franchisee shall not, except with the prior written consent of Franchisor, use or permit the use of any other trade mark, trade name or commercial symbol in connection with the Franchised Store, nor use or permit the use of the System or the Trade Marks, or any information contained in the Manual, except in connection with the Franchised Store. ...

Verduyn was asked about the business connection with respect to books such as "Men are from Mars, Women from Venus" and "Chicken Soup for the Soul. ... Ankrah expended considerable sums in purchasing Amway products as promotional items in order to motivate and train recruits. [11]     Some explanation for the revision to the expense claims is relevant in connection with the issue of sufficiency of documentation. ...

Each case stands on its own merits. [5]      In making his decision, the Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact which were admitted or denied by the Appellant: [translation] (a)         The Payor operated a telecommunications service and installation business; (admitted) (b)         The Payor conducted business under the corporate name of Servitel; (denied) (c)         The Payor's clients were Rogers, AT & T, Cantel, Hydro-Québec; (denied) (d)         The Payor hired between 60 and 80 employees per year; (denied) (e)         The Appellant is an electronics and telecommunications technician; (denied) (f)          The Appellant had been a salaried employee of the Payor since 1994; (admitted) (g)         In August 2000, the Appellant asked the Payor to be considered self-employed; (denied) (h)         The Appellant's duties involved installing or repairing electronic equipment on site and, on occasion, in a workshop; (denied) (i)          During the period at issue, the Appellant was providing services only to the Payor; (denied) (j)          The Appellant did not register his business name; (denied) (k)         The Appellant is not a member of any professional organization; (admitted) (l)          The clients were clients of the Payor; (denied) (m)        The Appellant was contacted by the Payor and the Appellant would make a submission for the work to be done; (denied) (n)         The Appellant carried out the same type of work as the Payor's salaried technicians; (denied) (o)         The Appellant had a work schedule that was the same as the Payor's other technicians; (denied) (p)         The Appellant could not be absent without notifying the Payor; (denied) (q)         The Payor set the Appellant's deadlines; (denied) (r)         The Appellant was required to submit technical reports to the Payor; (denied) (s)         The Appellant's work was verified by the Payor's engineer, by the Payor's test technicians or by the Payor's clients; (denied) (t)          The Appellant could not have his work done by someone else without the Payor's approval; (denied) (u)         If the Appellant needed assistance, the Payor assumed the cost by providing him with his own technical personnel; (denied) (v)         The Appellant billed the Payor at an hourly rate; (denied) (w)        The Appellant used the Payor's vehicles and occasionally his own vehicle for travel; (denied) (x)         The Appellant's travel costs for lodging, meals and mileage were reimbursed by the Payor when the Appellant used his own vehicle; (denied) (y)         The Appellant used his own tool box; (admitted) (z)         All material, wire, connections, components were provided by the Payor; (denied) (aa)       The testing equipment used by the Appellant belonged to the Payor; (denied) (bb)       The Appellant's work was an integral part of the Payor's activities. ... Two comments should be made in this connection. First, this special equipment is not available on the market and Mr. ...

[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION] REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Angers J. [1]      This is an appeal from an assessment dated September 20, 2002, by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") against the Appellant in connection with employer and employee employment insurance premiums relating to 21 Workers with respect to 2001. ... Article 1 also provides that the pilot is hired as a self-employed worker who must assume all responsibilities in connection with the performance of his work. [7]      Mr. ...

Denomy provided room and board on one prior occasion in connection with an individual introduced to her by Mr. ... Williams in connection with his monitoring activities, as Mr. Williams already had experience working with mentally challenged individuals. ...