Search - consideration

Although the Applicants’ evidence was accepted as credible, the Decision demonstrates no consideration of their evidence of ongoing discrimination, which was consistent with their experiences before leaving Croatia. ... However, the Decision demonstrates no reliance on this evidence, or indeed any other analysis, from which the Court can identify consideration by the RPD of this part of the required IFA analysis. [24]   I therefore conclude that, like the other two determinative findings in the Decision, the IFA finding is unreasonable. ...

As the tax debt was fully paid prior to the completion of the CRA’s consideration of the 2010 request, interest relief was granted to the date the tax debt was paid in full in December 2012. [14]   Further relief was not provided. ... Ultimately relief was provided after consideration of a broad range of factors and circumstances and in respect to time periods and circumstances that fell outside the scope of the guidelines. ...

The decision does not support an argument that, where a fiduciary duty has been breached, issues of causation and mitigation are similarly removed from consideration.   ... The truth is that barring different policy considerations underlying one action or the other, I see no reason why the same basic claim, whether framed in terms of a common law action or an equitable remedy, should give rise to different levels of redress.   ...

Jog, on this judicial review, it is only the Adjudicator’s Final Decision that is under consideration. ... Jog did not provide any proof. [28]   In the circumstances, the Adjudicator applied the correct test and undertook the proper considerations when faced with a bias allegation.   ...

The Officer explained in the Decision that “the CRA sends correspondence to individuals’ current address on file and also take into consideration their delivery preference”, which at the time was physical mail. ... While these subjective factors form part of the considerations that the Minister may take into account, at issue is the reasonableness of the error, objectively assessed, where the applicant's case falters. [17]   The Canadian tax system is based on self-assessment, which means that it is up to each individual to ensure that they conduct their financial affairs in accordance with the lncome Tax Act: R. v McKinlay Transport Ltd. 1990 CanLII 137 (SCC), 1990 CanLll 137 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 627. ...

The purpose of both plans is to ensure that each parent with shared custody of a qualified dependant can claim part of the tax credit and part of the benefit. [19]   In the case under consideration, it is accepted that children C. and M. are qualified dependents for the purposes of both plans. [20]   For the purposes of the GST/HST credit, the appellant and her ex-spouse are both an “eligible individual” entitled to the credit, but if one of them is a “shared-custody parent” within the meaning of section 122.6, the amount of the credit is split in two. [21]   For the purposes of the CCB, the term “eligible individual” is defined in section 122.6 as a person who (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is the father or mother of the qualified dependant (i) who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant and who is not a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant, or (ii) is a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant. [22]   For the purposes of the definition of the term “eligible individual”, the following three paragraphs of the definition must be considered: (f)   where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant’s female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g)   the presumption referred to in paragraph 122.6 eligible individual (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h)   prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing; [23]   Paragraph 122.6(f) involves a presumption in favour of the mother of the dependent, but paragraph (g) clarifies that this presumption does not apply in the circumstances provided for in Regulation 6301(1), which reads as follows: Non-application of Presumption 6301(1)   For the purposes of paragraph (g) of the definition eligible individual in section 122.6 of the Act, the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) of that definition does not apply in the circumstances where (a) the female parent of the qualified dependant declares in writing to the Minister that the male parent, with whom she resides, is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of each of the qualified dependants who reside with both parents; (b) the female parent is a qualified dependant of an eligible individual and each of them files a notice with the Minister under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the same qualified dependant; (c) there is more than one female parent of the qualified dependant who resides with the qualified dependant and each female parent files a notice with the Minister under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the qualified dependant; or (d)   more than one notice is filed with the Minister under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the same qualified dependant who resides with each of the persons filing the notices if such persons live at different locations. [24]   Among the circumstances described in Regulation 6301, the Regulation described in paragraph (d) applies in this case, given the benefit claim submitted by Mr.  ... It reads as follows: shared-custody parent in respect of a qualified dependant at a particular time means, where the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) of the definition eligible individual does not apply in respect of the qualified dependant, an individual who is one of the two parents of the qualified dependant who: (a) are not at that time cohabitating spouses or common-law partners of each other, (b) reside with the qualified dependant on an equal or near equal basis, and (c) primarily fulfil the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant when residing with the qualified dependant, as determined in consideration of prescribed factors. ...

. $330,855 is the agreed sale price of $326,900 plus additional consideration of $3,955; it is not clear what the additional consideration of $3,955 is for but it is clear that the purchaser is credited with the New Housing Rebate. ...

The law with respect to “neglect” in this context requires consideration as to whether the taxpayer had exercised reasonable care (Venne v. ... Here these ministerially assumed facts, pleaded in paragraph 10 of the Respondent’s Reply, are: a) the Appellant did not make any donations, either by cash or cheque or gifts in kind, to any registered charity, during the... 2006 taxation [year]; b) in particular, the Appellant did not voluntarily transfer any property that he owned (cash or non-cash) to any registered charity at any time during the... 2006 taxation [year]; c) the Appellant did not obtain or provide proof of any transfers of property that he may have made to a registered charity in... 2006 in the form of a validly issued official and non-deficient donation receipt; d) [RF] and [IA] were both Directors of Orbit where they worked together as tax preparers; e) [RF], [IA] or Orbit prepared and filed the Appellant’s returns; f) [IA] and Orbit were charged with defrauding the Government of Canada of income tax revenue in excess of $5,000, pursuant to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada, in respect of fraudulent charitable donation claims made by them on behalf of their clients for the 2004 through 2006 tax taxation years, as applicable (the “ scheme ”); g) [IA] and Orbit pled guilty to the charges on June 16, 2011; h) [RF] was involved with the scheme before 2004 and during the 2004 to 2006 period to which [IA] and Orbit’s guilty pleas applied. [27] Based on consideration of the evidence as a whole, I do not find that any of these pleaded assumptions has been disproved. ...

The considerations prompting the transaction may be of such a business nature as to invest it with the character of an adventure in the nature of trade even if there is no intention of making a profit on the sale of the purchased commodity. (7) The fact that the transaction is totally different in nature from any of the other activities of the taxpayer and that he has never entered upon a transaction of that kind before or since does not, of itself, take it out of the category of being an adventure in the nature of trade. (8) It is not essential to a transaction being an adventure in the nature of trade that an organization be set up to carry it into effect or that some operation be performed on the subject matter of the transaction to make it saleable. 1 do not consider it necessary to refer to the other cases advanced by both parties. ... While no single factor is determinative a consideration of all leads to the appellant having embarked on a program to produce in a short term amounts of income and not a long term investment program. ...

It is perhaps unnecessary to point out that the considerations which determine whether an interlocutory injunction should issued apply equally to the granting of a stay. ... The same considerations, in our view, apply whenever the Court is asked to lift or partially lift a stay previously granted. ...