Search - considered

The evidence is that the 1994 claim for the credit was approved in part, without the notices of assessment for the previous years being issued. [19]            Revenue Canada's failure to provide the appellant with a copy of the notices of assessment requested must be considered in context. ... Moreover, the applicant's fairness request, for obtaining an extension of time, is based on several of the factors listed in the Policy applicable to SR & ED, and it was on the basis of the factors submitted by the appellant that the request was assessed by the Minister and his personnel: see Appeal Book, at page 186, the fairness request and the alleged factors that follow (death and flood) and, at page 159, the Policy relating to the application of subsection 220(2.1) of the Act, in which natural disasters (a flood or fire), illness, or a serious emotional or mental problem such as death (my emphasis) are identified as events beyond the applicant's control. [31]            In the circumstances, I do not see how the appellant can say that the Policy applicable to this kind of request was disregarded when the reasons cited by the appellant and considered by the Minister are the same reasons as are set out in the Policy. ...

Burgess, supra, and that the issue of whether the right to support arises upon the judgment pronouncing the divorce or before that time has not so far been considered by the Court of Appeal.] [8]         The applicant, in his appeal before Archambault T.C.J., claimed the right to be treated in the same way as the recipient of support, that is, to be able to deduct the legal costs he had incurred. ... But an expenditure incurred in recovering an amount owing under a pre-existing right is a "current" expense and may therefore be deducted. [18]       Conversely, the expenses incurred by the payer of support (either to prevent it from being established or increased, or to decrease or terminate it) cannot be considered to have been incurred for the purpose of earning income, and the courts have never recognized any right to the deduction of these expenditures (see, for example, Bayer, supra). [19]       In Bergeron, Archambault T.C.J., obviously intent on eliminating the unequal treatment of the former spouses resulting from this approach (Bergeron, paragraph 19), declined to follow the previous case law. ...

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 he takes, 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. ... In order to make this determination the four criteria set out in Wiebe Door are factors to be considered. [19]            While neither Major J. in Sagaz nor MacGuigan J.A. in Wiebe Door completely rejected the "integration test", they did find that it could be difficult to apply. [20]            The Tax Court Judge quoted from the Market Investigations case and then posed this question to himself, "whose business is it? ...

In addition, our Court never considered the argument that Mr. Tuccaro now makes, namely, that the 2013 Motion determined whether res judicata and, more precisely, issue estoppel applied in respect of Benoit simply because the Crown based the 2013 Motion on the doctrine of abuse of process [16]            In fact, it is quite clear from the review of the 2013 Motion (particularly paragraph 6(c)), the memoranda of the parties before the TCC in 2013 and those filed before our Court in 2014, that the Crown in fact never raised res judicata (be it cause of action estoppel or issue estoppel). ... Thus, in Danyluk, the Supreme Court considered how the discretion should be exercised rather than returning the file to the motion judge, and concluded, after a review of various relevant factors including most importantly whether “taking into account the entirety of the circumstances, that the application of issue estoppel would work an injustice”. ...

Welch carefully considered how to proceed each month and decided, as each return became due, that they could not complete the returns and swear to the truth of their content, considering the missing information ... These circumstances must be taken into account, but must be considered against an objective "reasonably prudent person" standard. ...

  [16]         However, in paragraph 39, Justice Mainville recognized that a director’s particular circumstances are to be considered and measured against a reasonably prudent person standard:   An objective standard does not however entail that the particular circumstances of a director are to be ignored. These circumstances must be taken into account, but must be considered against an objective “reasonably prudent person “standard” ...

The home has never been offered for sale nor for rent, and has never been left vacant. [6]              The Appellant’s new housing rebate application was turned down because, per the Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”) letter turning down the rebate request, “for rebate purposes, your house in Canada can only be considered a secondary place of residence since your status while in Canada is a visitor”. [7]              The CRA notice of confirmation disallowing the Appellant’s objection similarly concludes that the Markham home is a secondary residence because the Appellant continues to reside in the United Kingdom. [8]              This is the position that was maintained at the hearing notwithstanding the evidence. [9]              The Respondent’s position is wrong. ... Analysis [21]         As noted above, the CRA letter denying the rebate application turns it down on the basis that the Appellant’s house in Canada can only be considered as a secondary place of residence since his status while in Canada when he agreed to buy it and when he moved in was that of a visitor. ...

The limitations placed on cross-examination of the affiant led the Tax Court Judge to conclude that the contents of Schedule A were unreliable. [10]            The Tax Court Judge then considered whether the choice of Ms. ... Toaze. [11]            The Tax Court Judge then considered the scope of cross-examination on an affidavit. ...

It cannot use the Federal Court as some form of back alley to avoid the provision and to avoid the jurisdiction of the Tax Court as confirmed in ConocoPhillips. [35]            To the extent that this Court has a small window of jurisdiction as per ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corp v Canada (National Revenue), 2016 FC 98, 262 ACWS (3d) 1087, in matters of bad faith and fettering discretion, those circumstances do not arise here. [36]            The Applicant, while admitting that the October 23 letter was out of time if considered as a Notice of Objection, contends that the Minister fettered her discretion or refused to exercise her discretion when she used the following phrase to justify not extending time: “there would have been no benefit to be gained in CRA considering an extension”. The Applicant argues that these words show that the Minister considered that an extension of time is only justified if CRA benefits – as if this type of consideration is a one-way street. [37]            The Applicant mischaracterizes the Minister’s words. ...

Smith testified that, if Jazz had not paid for the parking pass, he would have considered other options. While he stated that he would have considered other options, he did not mention what they were, with the exception of the option that consisted of paying for a parking pass out of his own pocket. ...