Search - considered

The Court has considered the written submissions where applicable and it has concluded that in respect to the 1991 taxation year, as with respect to the other years, the duty of the Appellant is to satisfy the Court on the balance of probabilities that the assessments in question are not valid. ...

And then he continues: In this regard, the first issue to be considered is the casual connection requirement... ...

Indeed, it cannot be said on the evidence before me that the various arguments that the appellant is raising now were considered either by Mr. ...

Subsection 55(2) reads: (2) Where a corporation resident in Canada has after April 21, 1980 received a taxable dividend in respect of which it is entitled to a deduction under subsection 112(1) or 138(6) as part of a transaction or event or a series of transactions or events (other than as part of a series of transactions or events that commenced before April 22, 1980), one of the purposes of which (or, in the case of a dividend under subsection 84(3), one of the results of which) was to effect a significant reduction in the portion of the capital gain that, but for the dividend, would have been realized on a disposition at fair market value of any share of capital stock immediately before the dividend and that could reasonably be considered to be attributable to anything other than income earned or realized by any corporation after 1971 and before the transaction or event or the commencement of the series of transactions or events referred to in paragraph (3)(«), notwithstanding any other section of this Act, the amount of the dividend (other than the portion thereof, if any, subject to tax under Part IV that is not refunded as a consequence of the payment of a dividend to a corporation where the payment is part of the series of transactions or events) (a) shall be deemed not to be a dividend received by the corporation; (b) where a corporation has disposed of the share, shall be deemed to be proceeds of disposition of the share except to the extent that it is otherwise included in computing such proceeds; and... ...

It is clear because of this test that each case is to be decided on its merits, which must be considered in light of its particular circumstances. ...

The only condition in subsection 118.3(1) which the Respondent disputes is the following: 118.3(1)(a.1) the effects of the impairment are such that the individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted, The dispute over this condition requires a careful review of subsection 118.4(1) which is primarily a code of definitions relating to this condition: 118.4(1) For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or can reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b) an individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding and dressing oneself, ii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi) walking; and (d) for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. ...

He did not consider all the factors he should have considered, nor did he assess the context fully. ...

Analysis and Conclusion: The question of whether an order of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta is binding upon an Appellant affected thereby must be considered in an appeal to this Court. ...

He did not consider all of the factors he should have considered, nor did he assess the context fully. ...

I am thus left with the impression that amongst those expenses there are still some, and I do not know to what extent this might be so, that could be considered personal or that are exaggerated. ...