Search - considered

"support amount" means an amount payable or receivable as an allowance on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient, children of the recipient or both the recipient and children of the recipient, if the recipient has discretion as to the use of the amount, and   (a)     the recipient is the spouse or common-law partner or former spouse or common-law partner of the payer, the recipient and payer are living separate and apart because of the breakdown of their marriage or common-law partnership and the amount is receivable under an order of a competent tribunal or under a written agreement; or                                                     […]   60.1 (3) Prior payments-- For the purposes of this section and section 60, where a written agreement or order of a competent tribunal made at any time in a taxation year provides that an amount paid before that time and in the year or the preceding taxation year is to be considered to have been paid and received thereunder,   (a) the amount is deemed to have been paid thereunder; and   (b)    the agreement or order is deemed, except for the purpose of this subsection, to have been made on the day on which the first such amount was paid, […]   (4) Definitions-- The definitions in subsection 56.1(4) apply in this section and section 60.                                                                                              ...   [21]     The applicable law in situations such as this is called the doctrine of estoppel and it was considered by Bowman A.C.J. ...

It would be preferable for these to be considered by the judge who will be hearing the appeals on their merits ...   [23]     As for costs in respect of this application, I have considered the parties’ submissions at the hearing, and have concluded that all parties should bear their own costs.              ...

It was considered that the stone wall was largely a personal expense.   [11]     At the hearing, the appellant testified that he was not claiming the full cost of the wall but only eight percent. ... The assessment did not disallow the expense in its entirety but it considered the cost as a capital item. ...

Medynski did not suggest that the expenses were deductible under any other provision of the Act, counsel for the Minister informed the Court that the Canada Revenue Agency had considered whether a deduction might be allowable under other provisions. ...   [31]     I would briefly mention that I considered the potential application of the surrogatum principle. ...

  [12]          Counsel for the Appellant submitted that section 54 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) must be considered. ...   [13]          The general rule is that: “…an amendment should be allowed at any stage of an action for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy, provided that such allowance would not result in an injustice to the other party not capable of being compensated by an award of costs.” [6] The comments of Bowman J. in Continental Bank [7] are of assistance:   It would do no credit to our system of justice in Canada if the courts were restricted in their consideration of the merits of a case by an ill-considered admission that is inconsistent with another position that is being advanced, particularly where it is sought to withdraw such an admission at an early stage in the proceeding. ...

  [69] Finally, th e Court, after having considered the foregoing and, more importantly, the fact that the lump sum will be partly paid in $500 increments for six months establishes the support amount at $800 per month. ...   [9]      According to criteria 5 and 6 set out by Hugessen J.A. in the above-noted decision, a maintenance allowance should not be allowed to accumulate, over a brief period, a significant degree of capital and the amounts paid during a fixed term can more easily be considered as capital than as allowance ...

The Minister based his conclusion on the assumption that the Appellant's daughter was not resident with him and that he was not the person who primarily fulfilled the responsibility for her care and upbringing as required by the Income Tax Act. [2]      Turning first to the question of residency, the relevant statutory provisions are set out below: Section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act: "eligible individual" in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a)         resides with the qualified dependant, (b)         is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant,... and (h)                prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing; [3]      The "prescribed factors" referred to in paragraph 122.6(h) are set out in section 6302 of the Income Tax Regulations: For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant: (a)         the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant; (b)         the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides; (c)         the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant; (d)         the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant; (e)         the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person; (f)          the attendance to the hygenic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis; (g)         the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and (h)         the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides. [4]      The Appellant accepts the following assumptions of fact [1]: (a)      the Appellant is the father of Teela; (b)      Lisa Dhoedt is the mother of Teela; (c)     Teela's date of birth was September 24, 1991; (d)      the Appellant resided in La Ronge, Saskatchewan; (e)      Lisa Dhoedt resided in Edmonton, Alberta; (f)       the Appellant and Lisa Dhoedt lived separate and apart; (g)      a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Prince Albert, dated February 2, 2001 ordered, among other things, that the Appellant have sole custody of Teela; (h)      the Appellant and Lisa Dhoedt agreed that for the 2004-2005 school year, that Teela would attend school in Edmonton;... [5]      The Appellant represented himself and was the only witness to testify at this Informal Procedure hearing. ...

The respondent argues that the orders must be considered as a chain of orders that arise from the original pre May 1997 order for support, and, therefore, where such a chain of orders dealing with support exists, I have to look in the definition of commencement day at paragraph (b) to determine commencement day through the entire chain of orders up to the February 2002 order. ... The date the order was made was February 11th, 2002, and, therefore, only amounts that became payable on or after that commencement day are amounts to be considered under (b) of section 60, subparagraph B of the Act to calculate the total amount of the child support payments that must be taken into account in the calculation of support for that year. ...

He argues, however, that certain other documents, when considered in light of his having actually made the payments claimed, constitute a "written agreement" within the meaning of the Act ... ]   [11]     This decision was considered by Bowman, A.C.J. (as he then was) in Foley v. ...

  [30]     Further, in 2001 when he started he may very well have been an independent contractor or may have been considered to be an independent contractor by the College, that year is not before the Court ... He was an employee of Algonquin College and Algonquin College considered him to be an employee ...