Search - consideration

Canada, [1999] F.C.J. 751 and we feel bound by this decision. 6           It is not obvious that putting the questions as they are in this form results in a thorough consideration by the doctor of the questions confronting him. ...

I reserved my decision on the motion pending my receipt and consideration of such further submissions ...

It is obvious, according to the evidence presented, that the Appellant did not work 40 hours per week for every week during the period in question. [24]     If the area of activity in which the worker had been hired is taken into consideration, the Appellant's period of employment, which ended at the end of December 2001, did not correspond to the Payor's actual needs. [25]     The income of $21,524 earned in 2001 did not justify hiring the Appellant full-time for the period in question. [26]     In light of all the circumstances of the case, the Court is convinced that the Appellant did not succeed in establishing, on the balance of probabilities, that the Minister acted wilfully or arbitrarily. [27]     The conditions of work would not have been similar if the Appellant and the Payor had an arm's-length relationship. [28]     The appellant's employment is accordingly excepted from insurable employment under paragraph 5(2)(i) and subsection 5(3) of the Employment Insurance Act. [29]     The appeal is dismissed. ...

The Appellant and Kenneth submit further that the Appellant and his common-law wife, Lorraine had in 1998 purchased a truck from Kenneth for $39,000, that the said truck was subsequently confiscated by the police as a stolen vehicle and that the $14,000 represented the balance owing to the Appellant by Kenneth after taking into consideration an amount of $15,000 which had been paid to the Appellant by the Motor Dealers Compensation Fund ("Fund"), being the maximum amount payable by the Fund under its insurance plan and it being further acknowledged that at the time of the confiscation, the truck had a value of $29,000. ...

In cases of joint custody where the child lives with both parents, entitlement lies with the parent who is found to have primarily fulfilled the responsibility for the child's care and upbringing during the relevant period, taking into consideration all the prescribed factors. [5]      In the present case, there is no real dispute about the facts that govern entitlement to receive the benefit. ...

However, as there are some considerations of interest and of the filing fee that the Appellant paid to bring the appeal before this Court which are independent of the remission order, I have pronounced the judgment that I have and the reasons for it because the matter is not entirely moot. ...

There is equally no question that the amount agreed to formed part of the consideration paid so as to release the Appellant from any future obligations. ...

I therefore cannot take into consideration the other adjustments that may have been made between the Appellant and the Commission employer for the period in 1998 and 1999 when the Appellant was not working due to his accident ...

Counsel for the Minister however contends that the $169,500 should be considered as a shareholder benefit or appropriation as opposed to earned income. 10        After some consideration I am satisfied that the $169,500 reported by the Appellant in 1990 as income from R.E.D.G. qualifies as earned income as defined in paragraph 146(1) (c) of the Act. ...

Other facts that emerged were that the business was sold in 2001; that the two Children only filed income tax returns with respect to their alleged salaries in 2002 after the audit of the business was conducted; that the Children did actually work; that the parents maintained the alleged salaries in effect were loans back to the parents to be used for the future education of the Children; that there was some confusion as to the hours worked by and the amounts allegedly paid to the Children; that the business was run by the Spouse and that the Appellant had very little to do with the business except having bought it; that cheques to the Children were not issued on a regular basis but rather only when cash was available with adjustments at year end in December. [3]      I find the following to be prime considerations: 1.      ...