Search - considered

While frequently considered as an aspect of legal relevance, the exclusion of logically relevant evidence on these grounds is more properly regarded as a general exclusionary rule (see Morris v. ... It seems obvious to me that the admission of the expert evidence in the present case would, as a result of the extreme difficulty in determining what assumptions were actually relied on and how accurate they were as well as which ones were not considered, leave the Court wondering when assessing the weight to be attached to that evidence. ...

Counsel for the appellant recognizes this in his written argument where he says: Because subsections 37(1) and (2) ITA are drafted to be mutually exclusive it is respectfully submitted that there must first be a determination whether a bundle of activities constitutes SRED within the definition of Regulation 2900 before deciding whether that SRED, if it is such, is carried on in or outside Canada; and [46] From this unassailable point he moves to a proposition that, in my respectful view, does not logically or necessarily follow: Therefore it is respectfully submitted, the language of paragraph 37(1)(a) ITA is unambiguous and clearly includes the specific data collection/field work activities that were conducted by the Appellant outside Canada in direct support of its prosecution of SRED projects in Canada. [47] The appellant's position is that if the activities carried on outside of Canada satisfy the criteria in section 2900 of the Regulations independently of the work that is done in Canada, then they are carried on outside of Canada; if they require the work in Canada to be considered SR & ED (i.e. if it is only by their integration into the project as a whole that they become SR & ED) then they must form part of an SR & ED project that is carried on in Canada. ... Should the component parts when considered alone fail to meet the requirements of Regulation 2900, then neither of subsections 37(1) or (2) would apply as the activities would not constitute SR & ED. [40] I would also note that there is nothing in the language or meaning assigned to the relevant provisions to suggest that the determination of where an activity is carried on should be made by reference solely to the cost of performing the activities. ...

Unlike a joint-stock company, [10] a partnership is not considered to be a person separate from its partners. ... Brossard J.A. wrote the following at page 1581: [TRANSLATION] Historically, partnerships were not considered legal persons and could not own property directly. ...

To formulate a decision then, the overall evidence must be considered taking into account those of the tests which may be applicable and giving to all the evidence the weight which the circumstances may dictate.” [7] The nature of the tests referred to by the Court can be summarized as follows: a) The degree or absence of control exercised by the alleged employer; b) Ownership of tools; c) Chance of profit and risk of loss; d) Integration of the alleged employee's work into the alleged employer's business. [8] I also take note of the further words of MacGuigan J., in the Wiebe case, above, where he approved the approach taken in the English courts: "Perhaps the best synthesis found in the authorities is that ofCooke J. in Market Investigations, Ltd. v. ... The most that can be said is that control will no doubt always have to be considered, although it can no longer be regarded as the sole determining factor; and that factors, which may be of importance, are such matters as whether the man performing the services provides his own equipment, whether he hires his own helpers, what degree of financial risk be taken, what degree of responsibility for investment and management he has, and whether and how far he has an opportunity of profiting from sound management in the performance of his task. ...

This could indeed be considered as constituting an element of a contract for services. ... I therefore cannot assign any probative value to this testimony. [36] Moreover, the question of organization or integration must be considered from the standpoint of the employee, not that of the employer. ...

The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer's training, the taxpayer's intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ... Even if the pickup truck were to be considered to be part of the property used by Mr. ...

If piece work can be considered as employment pursuant to a contract of service, then payment for having performed a defined lump of work within a particular time does not necessarily transform the service-provider into an independent contractor. ... The most that can be said is that control will no doubt always have to be considered, although it can no longer be regarded as the sole determining factor; and that factors, which may be of importance, are such matters as whether the man performing the services provides his own equipment, whether he hires his own helpers, what degree of financial risk be taken, what degree of responsibility for investment and management he has, and whether and how far he has an opportunity of profiting from sound management in the performance of his task. ...

My recollection of this matter is that you were to provide me with the figurer at (sic) you considered reasonable for costs, but I have not heard from you. ... Savage, 83 DTC 5409, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the meaning of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Act in relation to a small prize of $300 paid to Ms. ...

His then counsel therein explained the source of the $30,000 as follows: [TRANSLATION] (d)            as a result of litigation, the objector received $30,000.00 in full and final settlement, and that amount cannot be considered income under any circumstances. [21]          Counsel for the respondent asked the individual appellant which version was correct. ... Counsel for the appellants' initial argument that the Minister was not the one who had exercised his discretion in assessing the penalties was not really discussed in depth since the evidence showed that it was the Minister's own officials, and not those of Revenue Quebec, who considered the assessment of penalties and then assessed them. [52]          Counsel for the corporate appellant argued that that appellant kept satisfactory accounts and that no assessment should be made against it on the basis of the net worth established with respect to its shareholder. ...

The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer's training, the taxpayer's intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ... In 1998, the Appellant considered withdrawing from the rental pool agreement because the pool was shrinking from (i) defaulting owners who walked away from their investment; and (ii) owners who moved into their own units to try to preserve their investment. ...