Search - consideration

Rather, the question for the Court is whether the Minister's delegate erred in fettering his discretion under sections 220(2.1) and 220(3) of the ITA, by improperly imposing limits on the factors that he would consider as potentially justifying a waiver of the filing requirement. [13]            In my view, this question involves a consideration of the parameters of the discretion conferred by the relevant sections of the ITA. ... While one might surmise that there may be departmental guidelines in place governing this type of fairness request, no such guidelines have been placed before the Court. [21]            The question, then, is whether the Minister's delegate improperly limited his consideration of Dorothea's request for an extension of time to examining whether the case fit one of the three criteria identified in the decision, or whether the Minister's delegate indeed made an independent judgment with respect to the merits of Dorothea's request. [22]            The respondent submits that the Minister's delegate did fairly consider Dorothea's arguments, but nevertheless decided not to exercise his discretion in Dorothea's favour. ...

Barron, [1997] 2 C.T.C. 198 (F.C.A.) at 200 clearly establishes that, with respect to the Minister's exercise of discretion under subsection 152(4.2) of the ITA,_ the court may intervene and set aside the decision only if that decision was made in bad faith, if its author clearly ignores some relevant facts or took into consideration irrelevant facts or if the decision is contrary to law_. ... Scarcello clearly ignored some relevant facts or took into consideration irrelevant facts or that the decision is contrary to law. ...

Absent bad faith on the part of the Minister, a breach of the principles of natural justice or consideration of extraneous or irrelevant factors, there is nothing to warrant the Court's interference with the exercise of his discretion. ... I am satisfied that the Director exercised his discretion in good faith, considered only relevant considerations and his final decision is not patently unreasonable, being supported by the fact that the applicant continually filed a great many GST returns late after he had hired a new accountant in 1995, which was almost four years after the death of Ms. ...

Justice MacKay BETWEEN:                                                          ALASDAIR MACKAY                                                                                                                                             Applicant                                                                        - and-                                 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, representing THE                                 CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY                                                                                                                                         Respondent                                        REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1]                 These reasons concern the disposition of the application by Alasdair MacKay for judicial review and an order setting aside the decision made at the Surrey Taxation Centre of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency ("CCRA") on October 12, 2000 which denied the applicant's request for waiver or adjustment of interest assessed in relation to income tax arrears for the years 1988 and 1989. [2]                 After consideration of submissions made, by Mr. ... He raised for consideration that he had been unaware of the claim for tax arrears and interest until the fall of 1999, that since his return to Canada he had been unemployed and was then engaged in further training although the limits of financial resources available to him were not specified. ...

Where the statutory discretion has been exercised in good faith, and, where required, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and where reliance has not been placed upon considerations irrelevant or extraneous to the statutory purpose, the courts should not interfere ... In this regard, she has not convinced me either that the statutory discretion was not exercised in good faith or that reliance was placed on considerations irrelevant or extraneous to the statutory purpose. ...

I will consider those arguments. [11]      With respect to the argument that the Director took into account extraneous considerations when he considered the compliance history of not only the applicant but its sole director and shareholder, Mr. von Einsiedel, as well as that of the related company RAM, I cannot conclude that these are extraneous considerations. ...

The relevant paragraphs of the letter read:     If the final outcome of Peter Burnet's appeal from the assessment for the 1987 taxation year results in a loss, on account of income, on the disposition of the property (the "Property") which was jointly owned by that person and the taxpayer, the taxpayer's share, whether it be one-half or otherwise as the case may be, of such loss would be taken into consideration in determining the taxpayer's non-capital loss for the 1987 taxation year and a Notice of Determination of such non-capital loss would be issued accordingly.   However, even though the taxpayer may have a non-capital loss for the 1987 taxation year as referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph, the taxpayer's 1987 taxation year is statute-barred from re-assessment, and the taxpayer's share of any income loss on the disposition of the Property cannot be taken into consideration in computing her income, taxable income and tax payable for that year unless the Minister of National Revenue exercises his discretion to do so pursuant to the provisions of subsection 152(4.2) of the Income Tax Act.  ...

In addition to the foregoing, plaintiff submits the following consideration to which defendants object: f)      In the absence of an express agreement between the parties as to how much the repair work would cost, the Court will have to determine how the repair work is to be valued. This will involve a consideration of Greek law, commercial practice as it existed at the relevant time in the Perama repair zone, prices charged by Navamar’s competitors for similar work and Navamar’s price lists. ...

One consideration is if payment of accumulated interest would cause a prolonged inability to provide basic necessities (financial hardship) such as food, medical help, transportation or shelter ...   [5]                Section 28 goes on to provide that consideration will not generally be given to cancelling a penalty based on an inability to pay or financial hardship unless extraordinary circumstances had prevented compliance, such as natural or man made disasters, civil disturbances or postal strikes, a serious illness or accident, or serious emotional distress. ...

In terms of s. 10(c) of the Guidelines, I am not convinced that consideration was given to whether the house fire prevented Mr. ... I am not satisfied that CRA officials gave due consideration to these consequences ...