Search - connection

In deciding as he did, the Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact:   (a)        the core business of the Payor is to deliver health care services to the residents of the Province of Saskatchewan;   (b)        the Payor hired the Worker to perform consulting services in the Operations Division of its Information Technology Department;   (c)        the Information Technology Department of the Payor consists of two Divisions, being Support Services and Operations;   (d)        the Support Services Division and the Operations Division are each headed by a Director, both of whom are employees under contracts of service with the Payor;   (e)        the Information Technology Department of the Payor is headed by an Executive Director who is an employee under a contract of service with the Payor;   (f)         the function of the Support Services Division is to provide support services to end users, such as hospitals and other health care providers, in the form of help desk assistance, training and telecommunications;   (g)        the Operations Division is responsible for the development, programming, installation and maintenance of application and hardware technology used by the Payor in providing services to end users, such as a patient registration system (Enovation), as well as that used internally by the Payor for its own administrative purposes, including the maintenance of business records and the payroll systems of the Payor;   (h)        the Worker was hired by the Payor on May 1, 1995 and has worked continuously with the Payor since that time;   (i)         during the period in question, the Worker's duties were to act as a team lead for the inhouse Enovation product development and support, and perform UNIX (or similar) system management services, project management services and other such work and expertise that may be required in connection with the Payor's computer operations as may from time to time be requested by the Payor;   (j)         in respect of the Enovation and the UNIX systems, the Worker's responsibility was to get these systems up and running and to keep these systems operating;   (k)        the Payor had the right, at any time, to request any reports and other information that was related to the progress of the Worker in performing and completing his duties;   (l)         the Payor had the right to determine the content of any reports of the Worker;   (m)       the Payor required that the Worker comply with all reasonable instructions and directions from the Payor;   (n)        the Payor provided the Worker with written instructions with respect to the work of the Worker;   (o)        at all times, the Payor supervised the Worker in the performance of his duties;   (p)        the Payor could, at any time during its usual business hours, inspect and make copies of any and all records, computer software, computer programs, data, books or documents relating to the work of the Worker;   (q)        the Payor required that the Worker work on average, but no more than, 40 hours per week;   (r)        the Payor required that the Worker perform his duties during the normal hours of work of the Payor, being from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday;   (s)        the Payor further required that from time to time the Worker would provide off hours and weekend support to the Payor;   (t)         the Worker provided to the Payor invoices which set out a daily breakdown of the hours worked by the Worker;   (u)        the Payor provided the Worker with workspace at its place of business for the Worker to perform his duties;   (v)        in order to perform his duties, the Worker needed access to both the Payor's workspace and the Payor's employees;   (w)       the Payor provided the Worker with all necessary tools, data, computer hardware, computer software, computer accessories, equipment, office space and office facilities required by the Worker in order to perform his duties;   (x)        although the Worker also used his own laptop in performing his duties for the Payor, the Payor paid the Worker for the use of the laptop;   (y)        the Payor paid for the training of the Worker that was necessary in order for the Worker to obtain the skills needed to perform his duties;   (z)        the Payor reimbursed the Worker for any out of town travel expenses incurred by the Worker in performing his duties;   (aa)      the Payor required that the Worker be on call;   (bb)      other than for being on call, any requirement for the Worker to work from his home was minimal and was done as a choice of the Worker;   (cc)      during the period in question, the Payor paid the Worker at a rate of $65.00 per hour for the period from January, 2001 to June, 2001 and $70.00 per hour for the period from July, 2001 to November, 2002;   (dd)      the Payor paid the Worker monthly;   (ee)      although the Worker was not entitled to certain benefits, did not receive paid vacation or paid holidays, had no job security and no union protection, being benefits that were provided to the Payor's other employees, this was compensated for on the basis that the Worker received a larger hourly rate than did the other employees of the Payor;   (ff)        although the Worker could provide services to others, he could only do so providing that the performance of such other services did not interfere with the performance of the Worker's duties with the Payor and, in respect of this, the Payor had the final say with respect to whether such other duties interfered with the performance of the Worker's duties with the Payor;   (gg)      the Payor required that the Worker perform his duties personally, as among other things, the Worker was hired based on his skills and his knowledge;   (hh)      any client records, information, data, computer programs and computer software obtained as a result of or in connection with the work of the Worker could not be released by the Worker without the authorization in writing of the Payor;   (ii)        all computer programs, computer software, computer hardware, data, patents, inventions, methods, analysis and all other information and material of whatever kind, and whether of a proprietary nature or not, arising out of or as a result of the work of the Worker, was the property of the Payor; and   (jj)        the duties performed by the Worker were essential to the Payor's overall operation.   ...

., 1986 CarswellNat 375, [1986] 2 C.T.C. 259, 86 DTC 6421, in respect to the tests that one should consider in making this determination, such as: (1) the nature of the properties sold; (2) the length of the period of ownership; (3) the frequency or number of other similar transactions by the taxpayer; (4) the work expended on or in connection with the property realized; (5) the circumstances that were responsible for the sale of the property; and (6) motive. ... They were: (1) the nature of the property sold; (2) the length of the period of ownership; (3) the frequency or number of other similar transactions by the taxpayer; (4) the work expended on or in connection with the property realized; (5) the circumstances that were responsible for the sale of the property; and (6) motive. [67]     In that case the question of motive or intention was considered to have been the factor most developed. ...

His wife already had experience in the sale of similar products, Nuskin (although these have no connection to Corps et Ame products), and the two were considering adding a new product line to this activity. ... "tax shelter"- "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 total 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, or (ii) any other amount represented to be deductible in computing income or taxable 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, other than any amount included in computing a loss described in subparagraph (i), would exceed (b) the amount, if any, by which (i) the cost to the person of the interest in the property at the end of the particular year, would exceed (ii) the total of all amounts each of which is the amount of any prescribed benefit that is expected to be received or enjoyed directly or indirectly of the interest in the property, by the person or another person with whom the person does not deal at arm's length but does not include property that is a flow-through share or a prescribed property. ► 237.1(2) ◄           (2) Application. ...

On May 15, 1997, Petro-Canada, on behalf of itself and a number of co-venturers, (collectively, the " Co-Venturers ") entered into a Bareboat Charter with TOI and a Drilling Services Contract with TOVI under which the Co-Venturers agreed to charter the Explorer and secure certain services for a period of approximately 2 years in connection with the Co-Venturers' "Terra Nova" project (collectively, the " Charter "). ... Subsequent to the execution of the Deed of Settlement, the Co-Venturers solicited new tenders for drilling rigs to be used in connection with the Terra Nova project. ...

He stated the following:                ... where investment income is at issue, it must be viewed in relation to its connection to the Reserve, its benefit to the traditional Native way of life, the potential danger to the erosion of Native property and the extent to which it may be considered as being derived from economic mainstream activity. ... The evidence established no connection between the situs of the credit union and the protection or safeguarding of the interests, culture and development of the traditional way of life of the Indians living on the reserve. ...

"Carrier" is defined in subsection 123(1) of the Act as follows: "carrier" means a person who supplies a freight transportation service within the meaning assigned by subsection 1(1) of Part VII of Schedule VI; [20]          Whether the Appellant is a "carrier" depends only on whether it supplies a "freight transportation service". [10] [21]          "Freight transportation service" is defined in subsection 1(1) of Part VII of Schedule VI as follows: "freight transportation service" means a particular service of transporting tangible personal property and, for greater certainty, includes (a) a service of delivering mail, and (b) any other property or service supplied to the recipient of the particular service by the person who supplies the particular service, where the other property or service is part of or incidental to the particular service, whether there is a separate charge for the other property or service, but does not include a service provided by the supplier of a passenger transportation service of transporting an individual's baggage in connection with the passenger transportation service; [22]          Whether the Appellant's supplies are "freight transportation services" depends on whether a service provided by the Appellant, such as loading transporting vessels (ocean shipping containers) by which the conveyance of goods is effected, are properly included as "a particular service of transporting" goods. ... Taking the section as a whole, the critical required connection is that the supply principally relate to the process of moving goods from a point of origin in Canada to a place outside of Canada via a place in Canada. ...

At Tab 163 of Exhibit I-3, the appellant acknowledges having received from the mortgagor all the amounts owed under the deed of loan found at Tab 162 of Exhibit I-3. [31] Counsel for the respondent argued that the $4,263.93 in expenses with respect to the immovable on Dorion Street must be added to the cost of the immovable and taken into account in connection with the disposition in 1989. ... Counsel for the respondent submitted that the deduction of that interest should also not be allowed because the reason the money was borrowed is not known. [65] It is my view that the evidence shows no connection between the amounts borrowed and the money loaned in the appellant’s moneylending business. ...

The Appellant is known as a non-profit corporation and, specifically, part III of the Letters Patent (Exhibit 1) states the objects to be as follows: III The objects of the Corporation are: (a) to make available insurance plans and similar plans and benefits to members of the legal community in Canada and such other persons as the Board of Directors may determine from time to time, (b) to negotiate and contract with insurance companies with respect to the insurance plans and benefits referred to in (a) above, (c) to supervise the provision to certain persons as determined by the Board of Directors from time to time of pension or retirement funds and plans including registered retirement savings plans and registered retirement income funds; (d) to prepare and distribute informational material relating to the availability of such insurance and registered retirement savings plans and benefits, (e) to provide the administrative services required in connection with the provision and supervision of said insurance and registered retirement savings plans and benefits, and (f) to do all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objects, In no event shall the purposes of organization and/or operation of the Corporation include profit. [2] In the nine-year period from 1986 to 1994 inclusive, the Appellant reported a profit for income tax purposes in each of the years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1993 and 1994. ... The Caisse populaire ("CP") was assessed for business tax under the Ontario Assessment Act with respect to property it occupied in connection with its operations. ...

" [14] Then, in lieu of 30 days notice, TTA paid Cooper her regular remuneration for the period February 17, 1999 to March 18, 1999. [15] In cross-examination, Cooper stated she has no knowledge of the origin of the T4 slips- Exhibit A-2- as the only discussion she ever had in that regard was with an employee of Revenue Canada in connection with her claim for employment insurance benefits and it had been her understanding that someone at the Employment Insurance office had requested a T4 from TTA in relation to her earnings as a negotiator. ... When she attended the First Nations Summit, she did so on the basis it was necessary for her to be there in connection with her duties as a TTA negotiator even though her expenses were paid by the summit organizers from a separate budget. [16] The matter of Cooper having been given a staff jacket arose at some point during the evidence and, in rebuttal, Rose Dumont testified the jackets had been provided to contractors working at the T'Sou-ke Nation, including a biologist working for the Department of Fisheries and it was not intended to denote status as an employee. [17] Counsel for the appellant submitted there was a lack of evidence pointing to any intent by Cooper to have been regarded as an employee of TTA and that this was significant when considered in the context of control as borne out by the actual conduct of the parties. ...

Return to Canada. [18] In connection with this visit to the taxidermy shop, Mr. ... They do not have the required business connection. [44] Furthermore, Mr. ...