Search - considered

., contends the respondent, unless the Minister has not had regard to all the circumstances of the employment (as required by subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii) of the Act), has considered irrelevant factors, or has acted in contravention of some principle of law, the Court may not interfere. ... If, however, those facts are, in the opinion of the Court, insufficient in law to support the conclusion arrived at by the Minister, his determination cannot stand and the Court is justified in intervening. [25] There are thus four tests which the Tax Court of Canada can apply to decide whether it is entitled to intervene: the Minister (1) did not have regard to all the circumstances of the employment; (2) considered irrelevant factors; (3) acted in contravention of a principle of law; or (4) based his decision on insufficient facts. [26] The Court went on as follows: In my view, the respondent's position is correct in law except that it does not indicate what powers the Court enjoys once an intervention is deemed to be justified. [27] After making further observations, the Court added: It is therefore appropriate, in the case at bar, to analyze the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act under which the jurisdiction of the Tax Court is exercised in order to determine the type of decision it may render. ...

The principal purpose of the building is to provide a place for the doctors to carry on their medical practice, not to earn investment income. [36] Under Regulation 1100(14.1) amounts paid by someone other than the owner to use or occupy the premises are considered to be rent. ... That amounted to very little, about 10% and that was shared by the Appellant and two others. [85] The Court is satisfied that what should be considered here is the use of the space by the Appellant and not the Appellant together with the other co-owners because they had nothing whatsoever to do with the business of the Appellant. [86] It is true that the operation of the building included the running of the treatment centre but that does not rebut the prima facie case made out above because the Appellant and all other co-owners paid for their use of it. [87] Using the qualitative and quantitative tests as referred to in Gulf Canada v. ...

., contends the respondent, unless the Minister has not had regard to all the circumstances of the employment (as required by s. 3(2)(c)(ii) of the Act), has considered irrelevant factors, or has acted in contravention of some principle of law, the court may not interfere. ... In this context, he ought not to have considered the lack of a licence to drive a motor vehicle. 15. ...

There is no indication in Exhibit 4 or Exhibit 6 that the Minister considered the Appellant’s request for a loss carry-back (Exhibit 3). ... This phrase was considered by Fournier J. in Joseph Baptiste Wilfrid Jolicoeur v. ...

To formulate a decision then, the overall evidence must be considered taking into account those of the tests which may be applicable and giving to all the evidence the weight which the circumstances may dictate. ... The most that can be said is that control will no doubt always have to be considered, although it can no longer be regarded as the sole determining factor; and that factors, which may be of importance, are such matters as whether the man performing the services provides his own equipment, whether he hires his own helpers, what degree of financial risk be taken, what degree of responsibility for investment and management he has, and whether and how far he has an opportunity of profiting from sound management in the performance of his task. ...

This point has already been considered by the Federal Court of Appeal, in Breault v. ... How could it be considered that any such decision could make the Minister functus officio and relieve her of her power to make determinations? ...

For these reasons, the appeal is allowed and the appellant's employment during the periods at issue is insurable. [58] It is thus clear that Judge Garon ruled on the two paragraphs in question. [59] In her report the appeals officer wrote (at p. 2): [TRANSLATION] The appellant Raymond Tremblay appealed to the Tax Court of Canada with respect to those same periods, but also with respect to the period from July 10 to October 20, 1995, which had not yet been considered by the Minister. ... After verification, Réjean Bergeron, a technical officer in our office, accepted the appeal and considered the date of posting, i.e. ...

The latter considered that the appellant had not made a loan to a small business corporation but to an individual. ... This suggests that it was probably not prior to 1992 or 1993, as he mentioned at one point in his testimony, that the appellant realized that his debt had really become bad. [35] There will be a “créance irrécouvrable” (uncollectable debt) [3] in a taxation year if the appellant can prove that using his business judgment he considered during that year that he could not collect on the debt (see Picadilly Hotels Ltd. v. ...

He considered that the travel and promotion expenses were incurred by Cylindrix in order to carry out market appraisals over there. ... He considered that this amount was not used to purchase a building for Cylindrix but for the personal benefit of George Sidawi. ...

., contends the respondent, unless the Minister has not had regard to all the circumstances of the employment (as required by subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii) of the Act), has considered irrelevant factors or has acted in contravention of some principle of law, the Court may not interfere. ... If, however, those facts are, in the opinion of the Court, insufficient in law to support the conclusion arrived at by the Minister, his determination cannot stand and the Court is justified in intervening. [27] There are thus four tests which the Tax Court of Canada can apply to decide whether it is entitled to intervene: the Minister (1) has not had regard to all the circumstances of the employment; (2) has considered irrelevant factors; (3) had acted in contravention of some principle of law; or (4) has based his decision on insufficient facts. [28] The Court went on as follows: In my view, the respondent’s position is correct in law except that it does not indicate what powers the Court enjoys once an intervention is deemed to be justified. ...