Search - consideration

Other relevant factors to be taken into consideration include a person’s compliance history, credibility, circumstances, age and health. ... Fink to make whatever submissions were necessary to be fully heard. [35]   In Waycobah First Nation (FC), this Court held that the duty of fairness was situated at the lower end of the scale given that a decision to recommend or not recommend remission was different from a judicial decision as it involves a considerable amount of discretion and requires the consideration of multiple factors and also because remission of tax is an exception to the general principles of taxation (Waycobah First Nation FC at para 54). [36]   In my view, Mr. ...

Thus, “the general rule is that an amendment should be allowed at any stage of an action for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, provided, notably, to do so would not result in an injustice to the other party not capable of being compensated by an award of costs and that it would serve the interests of justice”. [22]   Regarding the interests of justice, the Federal Court of Appeal specified four factors in Jannsen Inc v Abbvie Corporation, 2014 FCA 242, 131 CPR (4th) 128 [Jannsen], at paragraph 3: Ÿ   timeliness of the motion to amend; Ÿ   extent to which the proposed amendments would delay the matter; Ÿ   extent to which a position taken originally has led another party to follow a course of action in the litigation which it would be difficult or impossible to alter; and Ÿ   whether the amendments will facilitate the court’s consideration of the dispute. ... The Court’s finding merits consideration: On the facts of this case, it was open to the Trial Judge to find that the proposed amendment, in the circumstances, manner and time in which it was sought, by its very nature and by its impact on a trial that was coming to an end was an abuse of process. [34]   Considering the issue affirmed by the FCA, that is, whether the interests of justice favour allowing or dismissing the motion to amend, everything militates in favour of allowing the motion. ...

S165(1) Subject to this Part, every recipient of a taxable supply made in Canada shall pay to Her Majesty in right of Canada tax in respect of the supply calculated at the rate of 5% on the value of the consideration of the supply. ... At paragraphs 46 and 47 the Court stated: [46] In determining whether a supply is a “financial service,” there are two questions to be answered (Global Cash, paragraph 26): … [47] The first question is simply to determine what services were provided for the consideration received. ...

Consequently, the failure to pay was not attributable to a situation beyond Gestions Bussey’s control. [17]   It is my opinion that these factors do not reveal a fettering of discretion, but rather reasonable consideration of the relevant factors. ... There is nothing unreasonable in the Agency’s decision. (3)   Consideration of whether test cases benefit the Minister [34]   Gestions Bussey argues that the Court should distinguish this case from Comeau because the delay in this case was caused by the wait for the outcome of test cases, which was not the case in Comeau. ...

[36]   The Minister’s discretion under subsection 220(3.1) of the ITA must be exercised in good faith, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, taking into account all relevant considerations and without regard to irrelevant or extraneous ones (Edwards v Canada, [2002] FCJ No 841 (TD) at para 14 [Edwards]). ... In light of these actions, it would be difficult to characterize the Applicant as a victim. [47]   Fourth, I agree with the Respondent that notwithstanding counsel’s argument on behalf of the Applicant that the Respondent failed to consider the long term hardship of the penalty on the Applicant, no evidence was filed before the Minister to support such a finding. [48]   The Minister’s Decision upholds the standard outlined in Edwards, above – to exercise discretion under subsection 220(3.1) of the ITA in good faith, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, taking into account all relevant considerations and without regard to irrelevant or extraneous ones. ...

[36]   The Minister’s discretion under subsection 220(3.1) of the ITA must be exercised in good faith, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, taking into account all relevant considerations and without regard to irrelevant or extraneous ones (Edwards v Canada, [2002] FCJ No 841 (TD) at para 14 [Edwards]). ... In light of these actions, it would be difficult to characterize the Applicant as a victim. [47]   Fourth, I agree with the Respondent that notwithstanding counsel’s argument on behalf of the Applicant that the Respondent failed to consider the long term hardship of the penalty on the Applicant, no evidence was filed before the Minister to support such a finding. [48]   The Minister’s Decision upholds the standard outlined in Edwards, above – to exercise discretion under subsection 220(3.1) of the ITA in good faith, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, taking into account all relevant considerations and without regard to irrelevant or extraneous ones. ...

This rebate will only be paid if the Appellant can meet the requirements set out in paragraph 254(2)(a) through (g) of the Act: 254(2) New housing rebate [purchased home]- Where (a) a builder of a single unit residential complex or a residential condominium unit makes a taxable supply by way of sale of the complex or unit to a particular individual, (b) at the time the particular individual becomes liable or assumes liability under an agreement of purchase and sale of the complex or unit entered into between the builder and the particular individual, the particular individual is acquiring the complex or unit for use as the primary place of residence of the particular individual or a relation of the particular individual, (c) the total (in this subsection referred to as the “total consideration”) of all amounts, each of which is the consideration payable for the supply to the particular individual of the complex or unit or for any other taxable supply to the particular individual of an interest in the complex or unit, is less than $450,000, (d) the particular individual has paid all of the tax under Division II payable in respect of the supply of the complex or unit and in respect of any other supply to the individual of an interest in the complex or unit (the total of which tax under subsection 165(1) is referred to in this subsection as the “total tax paid by the particular individual”), (e) ownership of the complex or unit is transferred to the particular individual after the construction or substantial renovation thereof is substantially completed, (f) after the construction or substantial renovation is substantially completed and before possession of the complex or unit is given to the particular individual under the agreement of purchase and sale of the complex or unit (i) in the case of a single unit residential complex, the complex was not occupied by any individual as a place of residence or lodging, and (ii) in the case of a residential condominium unit, the unit was not occupied by an individual as a place of residence or lodging unless, throughout the time the complex or unit was so occupied, it was occupied as a place of residence by an individual, or a relation of an individual, who was at the time of that occupancy a purchaser of the unit under an agreement of purchase and sale of the unit, and (g) either (i) the first individual to occupy the complex or unit as a place of residence at any time after substantial completion of the construction or renovation is (A) in the case of a single unit residential complex, the particular individual or a relation of the particular individual, and (B) in the case of a residential condominium unit, an individual, or a relation of an individual, who was at that time a purchaser of the unit under an agreement of purchase and sale of the unit, or (ii) the particular individual makes an exempt supply by way of sale of the complex or unit and ownership thereof is transferred to the recipient of the supply before the complex or unit is occupied by any individual as a place of residence or lodging, the Minister shall, subject to subsection (3), pay a rebate to the particular individual … [13]   Where more than one individual is a recipient of a rebate, then reference must also be made to subsection 262(3) of the Act, and also Section 40 of the Regulations to the Act: 262(3) Group of individuals – If (a) a supply of a residential complex or a share of the capital stock of a cooperative housing corporation is made to two or more individuals, or (b) two or more individuals construct or substantially renovate, or engage another person to construct or substantially renovate, a residential complex, the references in sections 254 to 256 to a particular individual shall be read as references to all of those individuals as a group, but only one of those individuals may apply for the rebate under section 254, 254.1, 255 or 256, as the case may be, in respect of the complex or share. 40. ...

Second, although there are requirements before the final certificate will be issued, the fact remains that those requirements are relatively modest compared to what has already been built. [26]   Thus, while, as I   said earlier, I   do not view the certificate as determinative, it does seem to me to be a factual element showing that the house was very advanced. [27]   Another consideration is to look at what was left to do. [28]   As of March   2014, the Appellant had yet to complete the items listed above in the comment section of the first occupancy permit. ... Given the distance, it is not feasible for the Appellant and her husband to commute from the new house to their respective places of employment. [47]   This last consideration regarding time spent in each location is very important and must be given great weight. ...

During the second review, the taxpayer will have the opportunity to submit further representations for the CRA’s consideration. ... Cynthia Pacheco, for consideration as a second-level request for taxpayer relief. [6]   In the course of her assessment, Ms. ...

While the IAD stated that the evidence of pre-wedding conduct was determinative of the genuineness the marriage, its reasons demonstrate that the IAD did not consider this to the exclusion of consideration of other relevant factors. ... The Chief Justice acknowledged that evidence about matters that occurred subsequent to a marriage can be relevant to a consideration of whether the marriage was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring status or privilege under the IRPA. ...