Search - considered

" Surprisingly, neither counsel referred me to case law that considered the meaning of the word “void” in fraudulent conveyances legislation either in Canada or in the United Kingdom. [2] There are a few reported cases: Boyd v. ... I would have thought that since this appeal was to be determined by the meaning of a term in a provincial statute, counsel would assist me in bringing to my attention cases considered by the courts on this point. ...

Analysis and conclusion [10]     Subsection 118.3(1) provides that if there is an impairment with respect to an individual's ability in feeding or dressing themselves, or in walking, a medical doctor or an occupational therapist, may certify in prescribed form. [11]     Subsection 118.4(1) reads as follows: 118.4(1) For the purposes of subsection 6(16), section 118.2 and 118.3 of 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 oneself or dressing oneself, (iii)        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; (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; and (e)         feeding oneself does not include: (i)          any of the activities of identifying, finding, shopping or otherwise procuring food, or (ii)         the activity of preparing food to the extent that the time associated with the activity would not have been necessary in the absence of a dietary restriction or regime; and (f)         dressing oneself does not include any of the activities of identifying, finding, shopping for or otherwise procuring clothing. [12]     The requirements in order to obtain income tax credit for mental or physical impairment are that, (a) the individual suffers from a serious and prolonged physical or mental impairment; (b) the effects of the impairment are such that the individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted; (c) the application is accompanied by the certificate prescribed by the Act; and (d) no amount in respect of remuneration for an attendant, or care in a nursing home, is included in calculating a deduction under section 118.2 of the Act. [13]     In the case at bar, the fact that the Appellant suffers from a serious and prolonged physical impairment is not disputed. ... This would, however, imply a very marked divergence from what is considered normal. [20]     Since the evidence has revealed that the Appellant cannot, without the assistance of another person, accomplish many of the basic actions related to two activities of daily living, namely dress and feed himself, I believe that he is entitled to the tax credit for a severe, prolonged physical impairment. [21]     The appeal is accordingly granted. ...

If, on the other hand, the appeal is allowed and the Court of Appeal gives the judgment it concludes the Trial Division ought to have given, the judgment on appeal must be given with reference to the assessment considered by the Trial Division, not the reassessment that ensued upon its judgment. ... Necessary incidents of that judgment are both the original income tax assessments which were considered by the trial judge and the reassessments which issued as a result of her judgment. ...

The Prince Rupert transaction must be considered as an isolated happening and is an adventure in the nature of trade and not part of a business of trading in real estate. ... The assessments are referred back to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment on the basis that these three properties are to be considered as inventory. ...

Justice Dussault then considered the purpose of paragraph 118.5(1)(c) as follows:   Obviously, words are to be interpreted and given a meaning depending on the subject matter and the context in which they are used. ... Thus, when considered in the context of the vast northwest coast of North America, the evidence supports the conclusion that Mr. ...

The issue is whether the interest earned on short term notes, in which the respondent invested the amount from time to time by which the progress payments received under manufacturing contracts exceeded current cash requirements, was Canadian investment income for purposes of dividend refund under section 129 of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148, as amended by SC 1970-71-72, c 63, s 1, the relevant provisions of which are as follows: 129. (1) Where a corporation was, at the end of any taxation year, a private corporation, if a return of its income for the year has been made within 4 years from the end of the year the Minister (a) may, upon mailing the notice of assessment for the year, refund without application therefore an amount (in this Act referred to as its “dividend refund” for the year) equal to the lesser of (i) / of all taxable dividends paid by it in the year on shares of its capital stock, and (ii) its refundable dividend tax on hand at the end of the year; and (b) shall make such a refund after mailing the notice of assessment if application therefor has been made in writing by the corporation within 4 years from the end of the year. (2)... (3) In this section, “refundable dividend tax on hand” of a private corporation at the end of any particular taxation year means the aggregate of amounts each of which is an amount in respect of any taxation year commencing after it last became a private corporation and ending not later than the end of the particular taxation year, equal to the least of (a) 25% of the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of its Canadian investment income for the year and its foreign investment income for the year exceeds the amount deductible under paragraph 111(1)(b) from the corporation’s income for the year, (b) the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of (i) 25% of the corportion’s Canadian investment income for the year, and (ii) the amount, if any, by which 40% of the corporation’s foreign investment income for the year exceeds the aggregate of amounts deducted under subsection 126(1) from the tax for the year otherwise payable by it under this Part, exceeds 25% of the amount deductible under paragraph 111 (1)(b) from the corporation’s income for the year, (c) 25% of the amount, if any, by which the corporation’s taxable income for the year exceeds the aggregate of (i) 4 times the amount, if any, deductible under section 125, (ii) % of the aggregate of amounts deducted under subsection 126(1) and (iii) 2 times the aggregate of amounts deducted under subsection 126(2) from the tax for the year otherwise payable by it under this Part, and (d) the amount of the tax for the year otherwise payable by it under this Part, plus the aggregate of the taxes under Part IV payable by the corporation for the particular taxation year and any previous taxation years ending after it last became a private corporation, and minus the aggregate of the corporation’s dividend refunds for taxation years ending after it last became a private corporation and before the particular taxation year. (4) In subsection (3), (a) “Canadian investment income” of a corporation for a taxation year means the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of (i) the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of such of the corporation’s taxable capital gains for the year from dispositions of property as may reasonably be considered to be income from sources in Canada exceeds the aggregate of such of the corporation’s allowable capital losses for the year from dispositions of property as may reasonably be considered to be losses from sources in Canada, (ii) all amounts each of which is the corporation’s income for the year (other than exempt income or any dividend the amount of which was deductible under section 112 from its income for the year) from a source in Canada that is a property (other than a property used or held by the corporation in the year in the course of carrying on a business), determined, for greater certainty, after deducting all outlays and expenses deductible in computing the corporation’s income for the year to the extent that they may reasonably be regarded as having been made or incurred for the purpose of earning the income from that property, (iii) all amounts each of which is the corporation’s income for the year (other than exempt income) from a source in Canada that is a business other than an active business, determined, for greater certainty, after deducting all outlays and expenses deductible in computing the corporation’s income for the year to the extent that they may reasonably be regarded as having been made or incurred for the purpose of earning the income from that business, exceeds the aggregate of amounts each of which is a loss of the corporation for the year from a source in Canada that is a property or business other than an active business; and The respondent, Brown Boveri Howden Inc., was incorporated under the laws of Canada and is a private corporation within the meaning of subsection 89(1) of the Income Tax Act. ...

What must be considered in particular are these provisions in subsections 62(1) and (3). ... M.N.R., [1946] S.C.R. 209; [1946] C.T.C. 51; 2 D.T.C. 812 (S.C.C.), the meaning of the words “ordinarily resident" [1] in paragraph 9(a) of the Income War Tax Act [2] was considered. ...

There is no indication in the information before the Court in this matter that the question of "value" was ever considered by Revenue Canada in assessing the appellant, let alone as sufficient to invalidate totally the deduction claimed by the appellant. The respondent at trial has no right to put it forward, as if it had been so considered. ...

  [7]      I accept her evidence that she was considered by Walden as in full‑time attendance. ... The Queen, [2] Bowie J considered the meaning of full‑time attendance. ...

The expense cannot be considered to be attributable against the income of any one year in particular, since the 4 /2% can be used for the rest of the member’s life and for as long as he wishes to leave his capital invested in the Caisse. ... In the case at bar, as moreover, in many similar cases, it seems evident that the outlay in question was made by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income, but the deduction must nevertheless be refused since this can only be considered to be an outlay on account of capital or of a capital nature in view of its scope and its permanent as opposed to periodic effect, and in view of the fact that it cannot logically be attributed or charged to a definite accounting period. ...