Search - considered

The latter part of this provision is unlike any other which has previously been considered by the courts. That part of it which provides that the Minister’s determination is not open to appeal, question, or review in any Court is a privative provision similar to many other like enactments, the effect of which has been considered in a number of decided cases. ... In my opinion this interpretation of the latter part of the subsection does not accord with the intention of the Legislature as expressed in the words which it used when considered in relation to the provisions of the subsection as a whole. ...

The appellant’s position is that the sum of $5,000 was necessarily laid out for the earning of income, whereas the Minister takes the position, first, that the amount was not laid out for the purpose of gaining or producing income, the expenditure having been made as an accommodation to an employee in a transaction outside the normal business of the appellant; and, secondly, that, even if it was an amount that could be considered to have been laid out for the purpose of gaining or producing income, it was laid out on capital account and the loss would constitute a capital loss. ... It continued to pay Hatton’s salary and, in fact, in the year 1966, as shown by Exhibit A-3, paid him a bonus of $1,000, showing, in my view, that the loan was in no way considered as prepayment for services yet to be rendered by Hatton to the company. From the evidence contained in the transcript, the arguments recorded therein, the exhibits filed and a review of the cases cited, it is my considered opinion that the appeal must fail, and it is therefore dismissed. ...

In analysing the evidence, it seems to me that there are two sets of circumstances to be considered. ... The contribution of each of the parties in Petex can, to my mind, be equated, and it is difficult to see how, in the circumstances, the $100,000 can be considered a commission fee for services rendered to Mr Hashman. ... The appellants’ subsequent sale of their shares in Petex cannot be considered as being indicative of speculation as part of a business or as a venture in the nature of trade dating back to 1961. ...

By the assessment appealed from, the respondent included in the appellant’s income for its 1964 taxation year, for purposes of Part I of the Income Tax Act, an item of $669,900 as being “gain on sale of the Bellamy Hill land considered to be taxable income’’. ... However, I express that only as a tentative view because I do not think that I should decide, in the present case, any more than that there is a transaction in the trading business that ought to be considered. My decision is that the respondent erred in taking into profit the item under attack but that the evidence that establishes that error shows that there were possible profits or losses of another kind that should have been considered and that were omitted. ...

The appellant contends that in determining control the will may not be considered but only the articles of Martin & Robertson, Ltd. and under those articles the Montreal Trust Company, one of the executors equally with the other two executors control the voting of the shares in the Estate of Duncan Gavin, deceased, hence, the two companies are not controlled by the same group and, therefore, are not associated. ... In determining the ‘‘right to a majority of the votes in the election of the Board of Directors’’ the said will may not be considered. ... It follows that Harold Duncan Gavin and Robert Duncan Gavin do not by virtue of the said will control the voting of the executors in respect of the shares in the estate of Duncan Gavin, deceased, but on the contrary under the articles which alone are considered, the voting of the executors must be unanimous in voting the shares in the estate and in determining that unanimity, Montreal Trust Company has equal voice with the coexecutors and may prevent the two co-executors exercising that control which is accorded by the said will. ...

The accountant cannot fulfil the duty thus required of him unless he has carefully considered the manner in which his client carries on his business and has applied to it the system of accounting that is appropriate to it and most nearly accurately reflects its financial position, including its income position, at the time or for the period required. ... The plaintiff’s method would insist that all the profits be taken into account in the year of sale, disregarding for income tax purposes the cost to be incurred in future years, which hardly seems fair; (e) A method that allows a matching of inventory and other direct costs with realized gross profit should be considered preferable to the method of deducting the same inventory and other direct costs when the major portion of the profit will be only realized in future years; (f) As regards future collection costs it is submitted that deducting these expenses against the profit element of the instalments which these expenses have served to collect, offers a better application of the matching principle than a mere deduction in the year of sale of an estimate of these same expenses (assuming that the same would be permitted under the taxing statute). ... Furthermore, the Court holds the view that, as the evidence in the present case amply demonstrates, an accounting method that obliges the taxpayer to pay tax on income without adequately taking into account offsetting expenses incurred and to be incurred in the future in the collection of outstanding instalments must be considered to be both inadequate and unfair. ...

The Federal Court thus had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for judicial review. [18] In Mikisew Cree First Nation v Canada (Governor General in Council), 2018 SCC 40, [2018] 2 S.C.R. 765 [Mikisew], the SCC considered the Anisman source-based test for jurisdiction. A majority of that Court endorsed the source-based test of jurisdiction or powers being exercised as the “principal determinant of whether a decision-maker falls within the definition of a ‘federal board, commission or other tribunal’” Mikisew at paras 106-109. [19] In 2019, the Federal Court, in SNC-Lavalin, considered the source of a prosecutor’s discretion. ... Coughlan” blank Associate Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-2504-22   STYLE OF CAUSE: JUANITA WOOD v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA   MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT EDMONTON, ALBERTA PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES ORDER AND REASONS: COUGHLAN A.J.   ...

[the exceptions do not apply] where such property is owned by the taxpayer... if, in the taxation year in respect of which the expression is being applied, the property was used by the taxpayer... principally for the purpose of gaining or producing gross revenue that is rent, royalty or leasing revenue,... 1100(17.2) For the purposes of subsection (17), gross revenue derived in a taxation year from (a) the right of a person or partnership, other than the owner of a property, to use or occupy the property or a part thereof, and (b) services offered to a person or partnership that are ancillary to the use or occupation by the person or partnership of the property or the part thereof shall be considered to be rent derived in the year from the property. 1100(17.3) Subsection (17.2) does not apply in any particular taxation year to property owned by (b) an individual, where the property is used in a business carried on in the year by the individual in which he is personally active on a continuous basis throughout that portion of the year during which the business is ordinarily carried on; or 11 With respect to the Appellant's grandfathering argument, based on the fact that the boat was purchased in 1985, the Appellant refers to the Budget Papers tabled in the House of Commons by the Minister of Finance on May 23, 1985. ... I believe that, reading all of the subsections together, one must conclude that if in virtue of subsection 1100(17.3) “rent” is not considered to exist when the owner is personally active in the business, then, since the Appellant was receiving rent (not a royalty), the yacht is not “leasing property” and the restrictions in subsection 1100(15) are not applicable. ... Property used more than 50% of the time for the purpose of gaining or producing gross revenue that is rent, royalty or leasing revenue is considered to be used principally for that purpose. ...

Pembina Highway is the second largest thoroughfare in Winnipeg; it is the main route to certain suburbs of Winnipeg. 12 The Appellant Larry Chartrand considered it was more economical to own the building rather than rent it. ... This agreement, dated December 17, 1990, which was filed with the Court, reads as follows: Let it be known that Larry Chartrand and Richard Banack both agree with the following and that this is to be considered a legal agreement. ... In the event of the company going bankrupt or closing it's [sic] doors, the $5000.00 loan shall be considered unpayable until all other debts have been paid first. ...

Lastly, he contends that including “feeding and dressing oneself” in the enumeration of these activities in subparagraph 118.4(1)(c)(ii) constitutes a requirement that the individual be unable to do both things, which must be considered as a single activity. ... Both are legitimate purposes which equally embody the legislative intent and it is thus hard to see why one should take precedence over the other. 12 Above all, it is important to recall what the Supreme Court of Canada has considered, particularly in Stubart,as the modern rule of interpretation, as stated by E.A. Dreidger: Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament. 13 The basic conditions stipulated in subsection 118.3(1) for an individual to be entitled to the credit for mental or physical impairment are first that the impairment be severe and prolonged and that its effects be such that the individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted. 14 Paragraph 118.4(1)(a) specifically states that an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or can reasonably be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 15 This point is not disputed in the instant case and I find it reasonable to conclude that this condition was met for a continuous period of at least 12 months over the two taxation years in issue. 16 Furthermore, paragraph 118.4(1)(b) specifically states the additional requirement in the following terms: (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 unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living. 17 Paragraph 118.4(1)(c) stipulates what the basic activities of daily living are and paragraph 118.4(1)(d) states that the enumeration in paragraph (c) is exhaustive and that no other activity shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. 18 Paragraph 118.4(1)(c)(ii) mentions “feeding and dressing oneself”. ...