Search - considered

She stated as follow:   [15] I was not referred to any judicial decisions of this Court which have considered an application of this type. ... The cases which have considered Rule 59.06 have adopted the definition of fraud set out by the House of Lords in Derry v. ...

The criteria for applying this exception to director liability were considered in Buckingham v. ... These circumstances must be taken into account, but must be considered against an objective “reasonably prudent person” standard. [...] [34]   Therefore, in this case, the Court must assess, against an objective standard, whether the Appellant exercised the degree of care, diligence and skill to prevent the failure that reasonably prudent person would have exercised in comparable circumstances. [35]   The Federal Court of Appeal further specified in Buckingham that the review of the due diligence defence had to include the measures taken to prevent the corporation’s failure to remit the required amounts. ...

The Tax Court also noted at paragraph 32 of its Reasons that, while draft documents prepared by the Minister or considered by officials in the context of a taxpayer’s audit are not normally producible in a non-GAAR case, they should be disclosed in a GAAR appeal as they inform the Minister’s mental process leading up to an assessment and reflect the Minister’s understanding of the policy at issue. ... Issues [14]   The appellants submit that the Tax Court made two errors of law and an error of mixed fact and law in refusing to order production of the disputed documents. [15]   Insofar as concerns the first alleged error of law, the appellants say that the Tax Court erred in law in concluding that only documents considered in the course of the audit of Western were producible and allege that broader disclosure was required. ...

Thus, for making the determination regarding primary place of residence, to be considered are purpose of the stay, length of the stay, physical presence at the residence, the intention to use the residence as the primary residence, and the address appearing on the individual’s personal records. Any other relevant factors will also have to be considered. [25]   The following is an excerpt from that statement: 10. [...] ...

The CRA representative advised the accountant that closing the account could be considered after the review was completed but the immediate issue was whether there is a discrepancy between the HST returns and the GBI on the T1 returns. ... Kirschke a collection letter. [32]   A number of cases have considered whether the address to which a taxpayer’s assessment has been addressed is a correct address, but none of them apply here. [10] In Bhatti v. ...

Thus the remaining issues to be considered are: Was the employment insurable employment under the laws of the Netherlands, the place where the employment took place? ... See section 7(c) of the Regulations to the EIA. [12] It may have been possible for him to find other employment in the Netherlands and thereby extend or amend his work permit although, given his personal circumstances and desire to return to Canada, presumably that was not an option he would have considered pursuing. [13] Employer is defined in the EIA as including a person who has been an employer. ...

As a result, the employment of each worker was insurable employment for the purposes of the Act. [3]   In making his decisions, the Minister considered the following facts in paragraph 16 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal: (a) the appellant is an incorporated entity; (b) the appellant operates a PVC window and door sale and manufacturing business; (c) during the period at issue, 9073-3965 Québec Inc. held and controlled all of the appellant’s voting shares; (d) during the period at issue, Josée Bilodeau held and controlled all the voting shares of 9073‑3965 Québec Inc.; (e) Josée Bilodeau is the mother of the workers; (f) the appellant had six directors responsible for: (i) Sales; (ii) Field sales; (iii) The two factories; (iv) Purchasing; (v) Shipping; and (vi) Human Resources; (g) Bianca Dupuis was the Purchasing Director; (h) Bianca Dupuis looked after: (i) sales customer service; (ii)   price changes; (iii)   marketing brochures; and (iv)   the computer system; (i) Catherine Dupuis was Director of Human Resources; (j) Catherine Dupuis looked after: (i) hiring and terminations; (ii)   employee complaints; (iii)   training; (iv)   health and safety; and (v)   social events; (k)   Jonathan Dupuis was the Director of the appellants’ two factories; (l)   Jonathan Dupuis looked after: (i)   purchasing machinery and trucks; (ii)   product research and development; (iii)   supervising team leaders; and (iv)   replacing missing staff; (m)   Samuel Dupuis was: (i)   a day labourer until August 2016; then (ii)   replacement team leader since August 2016; (n)   As a day labourer, Samuel Dupuis worked on the door and window assembly line; (o)   As a replacement team leader, Samuel Dupuis supervised 10 to 15 employees working in one of the appellant’s two factories; (p)   the appellant remunerated the workers by direct deposit for services rendered; (q)   the appellant made deductions at source from the workers’ pay; (r)   the workers met regularly with Josée Bilodeau to discuss work; (s)   the appellant retained her right of supervision; (t)   the appellant issued T4 slips to the workers; (u)   the workers were paid at different hourly rates depending on their position and seniority; (v)   workers were paid overtime when they worked more than 40 hours a week; (w)   during part of the period at issue, Jonathan Dupuis was paid a fixed weekly salary; (x)   while Jonathan Dupuis was paid a fixed weekly salary, the additional hours he worked were banked and converted to leave; (y)   the appellant paid the workers annual bonuses because they performed additional duties; (z)   with the bonuses they received, the workers’ salaries were in line with the market average; (aa)   the workers had not completed post-secondary studies; (bb)   the workers gained experience over the years, working for the appellant; (cc)   the workers completed timesheets, as did the other employees working for the appellant; (dd)   the workers were covered by the appellant’s group insurance, as were the other employees working for the appellant; (ee)   the workers accrued vacation days based on their seniority; (ff)   the workers worked for the appellant full-time for several years; (gg)   as experienced, reliable and responsible workers, they had a somewhat flexible work schedule; (hh)   as persons working in management positions, the workers worked a few hours without asking for remuneration; (ii)   the workers mostly worked in the appellant’s place of business; (jj)   as workers in management positions and/or workers who did not have to use heavy equipment, they worked a little from home; (kk)   the appellant paid for certain expenses when the workers worked outside the area; (ll)   the appellant operated year‑round; (mm)   the workers were hired year‑round; (nn)   the duties performed by the workers were essential to the appellant’s activities; and (oo)   none of the workers received extravagant or overly generous terms of employment, based on their position in the company. [4]   At the hearing, the agent for the appellant admitted that a contract of service existed between the appellant and each worker. ... “The Tax Court is justified in interfering with the Minister’s determination under subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii) “by proceeding to review the merits of the Minister’s determination” where it is established that the Minister: (i) acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose or motive; (ii) failed to take into account all of the relevant circumstances, as expressly required by paragraph 3(2)(c)(ii); or (iii) took into account an irrelevant factor...” [27]   In this case, the question to be asked is whether the Minister has considered all the relevant circumstances as required under paragraph 5(3)(b) of the Act and whether the Minister’s decision was reasonable under the circumstances. [28]   In his argument, the agent for the appellant cited the following criteria that exclude the workers’ jobs from insurable employment:- the workers’ salaries were not based on the hours actually worked, but on the personal needs of each worker;- bonuses paid to the workers were not tied to performance;- absence of fixed hours of work; the workers worked 30 to 82 hours a week, evenings, nights or weekends. ...

There are many cases in which the matter has been considered both in this court and the Federal Court of Appeal. ... The question is whether, considered in context of the law and the litigation process, the claim has no reasonable chance of succeeding.” [32]   More recently, this Court applied the plain and obvious test in Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. ...

Pacheco’s recommendation and dismissed the requests for adjustments, leading to the application for judicial review currently before this Court. [7]   Given that the ministerial decision under the taxpayer relief provisions is discretionary, the Delegate’s refusal to grant the requested adjustments shall be reviewed on a reasonableness standard (Anthony v Canada (National Revenue), 2016 FC 955 at para 22; Canada (National Revenue) v JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc, 2013 FCA 250 at para 96), while any alleged breach of procedural fairness is reviewable on a correctness standard (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 at paras 43 [Khosa]). [8]   I have considered the legality or reasonableness of the Delegate’s decision in light of all relevant documentation on file, including the certified tribunal record [CTR], the applicant’s affidavit dated May 5, 2017, the affidavits of both Ms. ... In this regard, the applicant has failed to establish any breach of procedural fairness. [10]   Second, the applicant invites me to determine that he submitted sufficient evidence in the forms of his alleged annual business income of $8500 by way of cheques made out to cash, and which he explained at the hearing, replaced the loss of income following the sale of his apartment, while any amount received in excess of $8500 was to be considered a loan. ...

Her Majesty the Queen (1986), 7 FTR 3, are often cited for the factors to be considered. [8]   The Supreme Court of Canada took the list of factors in the Minister of National Revenue’s bulletin IT-218R and restated most of them at paragraph 17 of Friesen as follows: (i) The taxpayer’s intention with respect to the real estate at the time of purchase and the feasibility of that intention and the extent to which it was carried out. ... The more closely a taxpayer’s business or occupation is related to real estate transactions, the more likely it is that the income will be considered business income rather than capital gain. ...