Search - consideration

U-1. 2      Subsection 71(2) of the Unemployment Insurance Act reads as follows:          (2) Where, on an appeal to the Tax Court of Canada from a decision of the Minister, a person affected by the decision is requested by the court to attend before it on the consideration of the appeal and so attends, he shall be paid such travel and other allowances, including compensation for loss of remunerative time, as are approved by the Treasury Board. 3      See: Canada (Attorney General) v. ...

She says, and we agree with her, that the Judge awarded costs against her on the basis of an improper and irrelevant consideration, namely that “counsel of record for the appellant was the same counsel that appeared for the appellant in the Main Rehabilitation Co. case …” (paragraph 16 of the Judge’s Reasons). ...

The argument that this was a sale for a “negative price” lacks any legal basis, since without the monetary consideration, there is no sale ...

  [4] The appellants essentially argue that with regard to both subsections 74.2(1) and 74.5(6) of the Act, the notion of a “series of transactions”, as defined by subsection 248(10) of the Act, should be taken into consideration. ...

(Amethyst) he received consideration of $6,116,051.00.  Mr. Houweling was the sole shareholder of Amethyst ...

The appellant argues that in so concluding, the Judge made an overriding and palpable error in ignoring evidence in the form of the SoUse Schedule of Outstanding Loans and in the form of a letter from Revenue Canada, dated February 1994, confirming that the loan had been used to earn income with respect to a prior year. [4]                After consideration of the evidence and, in particular, of the appellant's oral testimony, we are satisfied that the Judge did not make an overriding and palpable error. ...

That is a proper case management consideration, especially in informal proceedings. [3]                The Minister has the statutory authority to correct an erroneous assessment by making a new assessment within the statutory time limit or, in certain income tax cases, even after the expiry of the statutory time limit, whether or not the respondents succeed in obtaining an extension of time to file notices of objection. [4]                Counsel for the Minister suggests that there is a rule or policy that such corrections cannot be made while there is an outstanding court proceeding. ...

E-15, subsection 153(2), provides that the consideration for multiple supplies must be allocated reasonably among the supplies. ...

It is noteworthy to mention the following: the issue of whether the services in this case were rendered or not – notwithstanding by whom – could be considered a relevant consideration not only to determine if the appellant was entitled to the ITC, but also to determine if the appellant acted in good faith. [7]                Findings of facts and of mixed fact and law of the Judge are reviewable under the standard of palpable and overriding error (Housen v. ...

Justice Shore BETWEEN: JEYLANI SHARIF MOWLANA Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondents ORDER UPON motion on behalf of the Applicant for a stay of removal, scheduled for tomorrow, August 9, 2019, pending the determination of an application for leave and judicial review of a Pre-removal Risk Assessment decision; AND UPON having read and considered the written submissions, as well as having heard the oral submissions of both parties; Subsequent to consideration of the tripartite conjunctive criteria of the Toth v Canada test (Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1988) 86 NR 302 (FCA)); RECOGNIZING that the standard of review of an enforcement officer’s decision is that of reasonableness, a strong case must exist within specific context under the circumstances; whereas, there is ample objective and subjective evidence to demonstrate serious peril to life and limb as shown herein (Baron v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81); ACKNOWLEDGING the higher standard in respect of serious issue on a matter of refusal to defer a stay; and recognizing, if a stay is granted, it has bearing on the underlying judicial review application (Wang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 148, [2001] FCJ No 295 (TD)); RECOGNIZING the consequences of the Applicant’s crime of absconding food stamps, worth $200,000 committed in 2004 and for which he was convicted in 2011 (food stamps used in his store by which customers did benefit as did he with exchanges for the food stamps, in contravention of the food stamp scheme; the Applicant was sentenced to three years of probation and monthly restitution of food stamp value, which he made in monthly payments until his departure from the United States, when the Applicant was informed that he will be removed to his country of origin, Somalia); all of which the Court weighed against the background of serious peril to the Applicant’s life and limb, if he is returned to his country of origin. ...