Search - consideration

In my view, the Appeal Panel was again placing undue focus on the divorce to the exclusion of a consideration of the other service related factors identified by Dr. ... Perhaps the relevant considerations were better stated by the Review Panel by asking if the Applicant “established that he has the claimed condition (an injury or disease or aggravations thereof) and whether the claimed condition constitutes a permanent disability”. [57]   Viewed in whole, the Applicant’s evidence was likely wanting. ... JUDGMENT in T-222-19 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review is granted; The Appeal Panel’s decision is set aside and the matter is referred back to a differently constituted panel for redetermination, taking into consideration the reasons contained in this decision; and There shall be no order as to costs. ...

(as she then was) on the consideration of such factors was in the context of the “debate about the degree to which personal characteristics should be reflected in the objective test for fault in offences of penal negligence” (Creighton, at p. 60 (emphasis added)). (3)            Causal Connection [61]                           In addition to an underlying unlawful act that is objectively dangerous, one last element is required to establish the actus reus: a causal connection. ... Second Error of Law: Consideration of Personal Characteristics [72]                           My colleague maintains that the trial judge, in her analysis, relied on Ms.  ... Consideration of Ms. Javanmardi’s qualifications at the mens rea stage was therefore not an error as such. ...

Had I limited my consideration of the officer’s analysis of it to the November 30, 2018, letter, I would have found that the decision is unreasonable.   ... That being said, this is only one consideration and it may not be determinative.   ... The applicant bases this request on four considerations: (1) the officer clearly erred in the November 30, 2018, letter by treating the lists of “same condition” processes as exhaustive rather than illustrative; (2) the respondent acknowledged this error only at the eleventh hour; (3) the same condition ruling represents a reversal of how CBSA had treated the applicant’s processes in the past; and (4) the present application is a form of test case litigation which was brought to clarify the law governing “same condition” determinations. [91]   I am not persuaded that the usual practice governing costs should not be followed in this case.   ...

Weiland stated that another factor that they took into consideration in selling the Meadowshire 1 house was that Mr. ... Justice Tardif stated: 15 Although the appellant’s submissions were unusual and even surprising, they were neither far-fetched nor unreasonable enough for it to be concluded that he made a wilful default or mistake with the intent to escape from his Canadian tax obligations. 16 Firstly, he expressed his objection, and secondly, he took initiatives to show that his allegations had merit, while taking into consideration the fact that certain income, specifically, pension income paid to a citizen who lives in a country other than the one that pays the pension, is not taxed.... 18 To conclude that the appellant’s conduct was a wilful default or that it constituted a sufficient error to permit the Minister to assess beyond the normal period, would affect any taxpayer's right to contest the merits of an assessment, and would cause the limitation period imposed by Parliament to be essentially theoretical. [82]   It is clear from the above-noted decisions that simply because a taxpayer has adopted a position that contradicts the Minister's position does not in itself mean a taxpayer has made a misrepresentation that would allow the Minister to reassess after the normal period for reassessing a taxpayer. [83]   As was the case in Cameron, in the appeal at bar, the auditor’s analysis for reopening the statute-barred years focussed on the length of the ownership period and the number of similar transactions and gave insufficient consideration to the central question of whether the taxpayer carefully considered his position and attempted to deceive the Minister. [84]   In addition, the case law as to whether amounts from the sale of a residence should be treated as business income or exempt capital gain (principal residence exemption) demonstrates that there is no hard and fast rule. ...

The shares of Jetco owned by Emergis were transferred to US Holdco in consideration for 100 common shares of US Holdco and subsequently transferred to Acquisitionco in consideration for 100 common shares of Acquisitionco. [15] Emergis used the cross-border structure to finance its arm’s length acquisition of U.S. operating company (UP&UP) in the following manner: Emergis subscribed for Cansubco shares in the amount of US$34,400; Emergis and Cansubco made capital contributions to USGP, based on their respective partnership percentages, totalling US$33,385,535; Emergis lent USGP US$266,670,000 at an annual interest rate of 12.25% for a ten-year term, which interest rate was reduced to 12.127% after October 1, 2000 due to a change in the interest payment schedule from quarterly to monthly (the “First Loan”); USGP used the funds provided by the First Loan and the Appellant’s and Cansubco’s capital contributions to subscribe for US$300,002,000 of capital stock of NSULC; USGP subscribed for 1 share of LLC for US$100; NSULC subscribed for shares of LLC for US$300,001,000; Emergis subscribed for 2,424,720 shares of US Holdco, for US$242,472,050; US Holdco subscribed for 2,424,710 shares of Acquisitionco, for US$242,471,050; LLC lent Acquisitionco US$300,000,000 at an annual interest rate of 12.5% for a 10-year term, which interest rate was reduced to 12.372% after September 27, 2000 due to a change in the interest payment schedule from quarterly to monthly (the “Second Loan”); Jetco and UP&UP merged and thereby formed a new U.S. corporation (US Mergco); and Acquisitionco was merged into US Mergco to form US Amalco and by virtue of this merger, US Amalco assumed the Second Loan. [16] At all times material to this appeal USGP, NSULC, and LLC were “hybrid entities”, meaning that they were treated differently under Canadian and U.S. tax laws. ... Rather, the U.S. tax was imposed on the interest payment received by Emergis and not on Emergis’ allocation of the NSULC dividend. [71] However, the reference in subsection 20(12) to the U.S. tax “that can reasonably be regarded as having been paid by a corporation in respect of income from a share of the capital stock of a foreign affiliate of the corporation” clearly suggests to consider whether the income from shares received by a corporation other than the taxpayer can reasonably be regarded as the one in respect of which the U.S. tax paid by the taxpayer claiming the deduction. [72] For this purpose, consideration should be given to the fact that the LLC dividend partly or wholly funded the interest payments on the First Loan in determining whether there is a significant connection between the U.S. tax paid and the LLC dividend. [73] Since it is admitted by the parties that USGP used the dividend income it received from its shares of NSULC to pay interest of US $32,622,207 (computed before U.S. withholding tax on that interest) to Emergis on the First Loan, the U.S. withholding tax paid on the interest income paid by the USGP to Emergis may reasonably be considered as being “connected with or related to” the dividend income paid by LLC to NSULC. [74] As subsection 93.1(1) of the Act operates to deem Emergis to own a proportionate share of the NSULC shares owned by USGP equal to its proportionate interest in the partnership, with the result Emergis had an equity percentage in LLC of 99.9%, it is a “further and distinct connection” that if Emergis had not owned the NSULC shares, it would not have had the dividend funds to pay the interest. ...

., April 19, 1991, delivered orally from the bench on April 19, 1991, wherein he said at page 6 thereof: In the present case, the appellant company filed its return without taking into consideration paragraph 55(5)(f) and there is nothing in the Act that gives the Tax Court the jurisdiction to allow a late filing except in the case of a notice of objection or a notice of appeal. ... I therefore find that, in the circumstances before me, Lloydco's safe income cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of calculating the safe income of Monarch. ... Ct.), what was then subsection 58(3) of the Act and is now subsection 165(3) thereof was under consideration. ...

There are two principal considerations which lead me to conclude that neither OBC nor ICS is a "religious order" within the intention of paragraph 8(1)(c). ... The second consideration is that both OBC and ICS have their primary purposes in education. ... Small in the cases here under consideration met. Thus in Attwell, supra, Mr. ...

Concerning the appellant's objections to the findings of fact, the following considerations are, in my opinion, decisive. ... Similarly, subsection 69(1) contains general deeming provisions for situations where properties are acquired or disposed of for excessive or inadequate consideration: 69(1) Except as expressly otherwise provided in this Act, (a) where a taxpayer has acquired anything from a person with whom he was not dealing at arm’s length at an amount in excess of the fair market value thereof at the time he so acquired it, he shall be deemed to have acquired it at that fair market value; (b) where a taxpayer has disposed of anything (i) to a person with whom he was not dealing at arm's length for no proceeds or for proceeds less than the fair market value thereof at the time he so disposed of it, (ii) to any person by way of gift inter vivos, he shall be deemed to have received proceeds of disposition therefor equal to that fair market value; and (c) where a taxpayer has acquired property by way of gift, bequest or inheritance, he shall be deemed to have acquired the property at its fair market value at the time he so acquired it. ... I start my consideration of this aspect of the case with the observation that any law which imposes a new tax is unfair on the view advanced by the respondents if the taxpayer is obliged to give up property which he had theretofore held free of tax. ...

Item 2, the parties agree, notwithstanding the position taken in the pleadings, that there was an understanding that the Minister would proceed with a consideration of the plaintiff's election under subsection 184(3) once the final outcome of the Part III litigation ad been determined. ... The subsection under consideration in this case was meant to be a further remedial measure. ... An obvious policy consideration nourishes the distinction in treatment. ...

" The opening paragraph recites that in consideration of $200,000 paid by the grantee to the grantor the latter grants to the grantee all merchantable timber on certain tracts of land described in Schedule "A" together with the right to cut and remove the timber for a period of five years from the date of the agreement. ... Orval Gillespie some 50,000 shares in Carolin Mines Ltd. to be delivered by no later than Monday, February 23, 1987, which shares are to be non-legend stock, in consideration for which shares Mr. van Halderen will cause to be returned to Mr. ... Our client is now prepared to consider an agreement that would be essentially structured wherein Carolin shares would be received by our client and sold netting a total sum no less than $500,000 (Cdn) in consideration of the sale of the David debenture, the David-Merida debenture and the Gilwil debenture. ...