Search - considered

.), Tremblay-Lamer J. set out three requirements at paragraph 23, that must be met if a delay is to be considered unreasonable: (1)   The delay in question has been longer than the nature of the process required, prima facie; (2)   The applicant and his counsel are not responsible for the delay; and (3)   The authority responsible for the delay has not provided satisfactory justification. ...

Had the defendant considered it a genuine issue, she would have raised it then or, at least, far earlier than she did.   ...

Had the defendant considered it a genuine issue, she would have raised it then or, at least, far earlier than she did.   ...

It must still be given first-hand elsewhere or be admissible under another exception to the hearsay rule: Tsleil-Waututh No. 2. [40]   In Tsleil-Waututh No. 2, this Court considered whether an affidavit tendered by Trans Mountain should be struck on account of hearsay. ...

The factual circumstances will still be important, but will have to be considered from the point of view of a reasonably prudent person. [31]   Thus, the Federal Court of Appeal held that a “person who is appointed as a director must carry out the duties of that function on an active basis and will not be allowed to defend a claim for malfeasance in the discharge of his or her duties by relying on his or her own inaction” (paragraph 38). [32]   A director therefore has a duty to find out whether the taxes have been remitted. ...

The appeals turn on an amount (“adjusted cost basis”) that the Minister should have considered but did not consider in reassessing the Appellants. ...

The Court considered the matter of when a payment constituted consideration under the ETA. ...

The jurisprudence is clear that this determination turns on the facts, although it identifies a number of factors to be considered. ...

It must involve a high degree of negligence tantamount to intentional acting, an indifference as to whether the law is complied with or not. [72]   Wilful blindness will be established if the respondent establishes on a balance of probabilities that the taxpayer subjectively knew that the statements in his or her income tax return were false but chose not to make further inquiries because he or she subjectively knew or strongly suspected that the inquiries would provide him or her with the knowledge that the statements were indeed false Since it is a subjective test, the personal attributes of the individual may be considered in determining whether the individual is wilfully blind. [73]   On the other hand, the “gross negligence” standard is an objective test. ...

Canada 2014 FCA 280 (CanLII) where the Federal Court of Appeal says at paragraph 15: “Travel expenses incurred by a taxpayer travelling between his home and place of employment are generally considered to be personal expenses. ...