Search - considered

The evidence showed that within the industry a product is considered to be shelf‑stable if it can remain stable at room temperature for a period of at least two years. ... I therefore conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that in undertaking the development of their cold‑pressed juice drink, Manning Canning faced a technological uncertainty that could not be resolved by routine engineering or standard procedure. (2) Formulation and Testing of Hypotheses [18] In his decision in Joel Theatrical Rigging Contractors (1980) Ltd., Justice Sommerfeldt, after reviewing the jurisprudence that considered the meaning of the word “hypothesis” concluded at paragraph 26 that a hypothesis is a statement to be tested by an experiment or a trial. ...

Excerpted below are the relevant provisions: shared-custody parent  in respect of a qualified dependant at a particular time means, where the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) of the definition eligible individual does not apply […] an individual who is one of the two parents […] who (a) are not at that time cohabiting […] (i) at least 40% of the time […] (ii) on an approximately equal basis, and (c) primarily fulfil the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant when residing with the qualified dependant […] The female parent presumed as primary caregiver [19] If the child resides with the mother, the definition section below presumes the mother, unless otherwise specified or prescribed in (g) and (h), is the primary caregiver (f): (f) where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant’s female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph 122.6 eligible individual (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing, and … Ditching the female parent presumption [20] The prescription (limitation) of the female parent presumption is found in Income Tax Regulation 6300 at 6301 (1)(d): 6301 (1) For the purposes of paragraph (g) of the definition eligible individual in section 122.6 of the Act, the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) of that definition does not apply in the circumstances where […] (d) more than one notice is filed with the Minister under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the same qualified dependant who resides with each of the persons filing the notices if such persons live at different locations. Factors where eligible caregiver unclear [21] Lest anyone be unclear after working through the qualification description, ITR 6302 provides a list of factors to be deployed to determine care and upbringing. 6302 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 hygienic 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. ...

Allowing the litigation to proceed may be considered to violate important principles such as judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice: C.U.P.E. at para. 37. [20] The appellant submits that although the statute-barred issue was not argued in Makuz, it goes to the validity of the underlying reassessments and the Tax Court implicitly accepted the validity of those reassessments when it confirmed their correctness. ... If that were the case the analysis on the 1989 waiver would end here, as the waiver would be considered to have been filed prior to the end of the “normal reassessment period” (as extended). ...

In particular, he submits that, contrary to that Rule, the current Notice of Appeal only contains bald assertions of bias whereas paragraphs 8 and 23 to 30 of the proposed amended Notice of Appeal simply “allude to general allegations of public pressure and undue influence actively considered by multiple, unnamed decision-makers”. ... However, this is not, as appears from the current Notice of Appeal, a new ground of appeal which, relying on McKesson, would require the question of reasonable prospect of success to be considered. ...

What is required is a clear and settled intention to occupy the premises as a “primary place of residence”, considered in the context of an individual’s personal, family and work related circumstances (…)” (para 7). [32] I also added that “Parliament’s use of the word “primary” also suggests that the purchaser must have a settled intention to centre or arrange his personal and family affairs around that property (…)” (para 8). [33] The Minister has assumed that the Appellant did not intend to occupy the Rebate Property as her primary place of residence. ... I find that it was not her primary place of residence. [43] All things considered, I find that the Appellant has not successfully established on a balance of probabilities that she intended to occupy the Rebate Property as her primary place of residence when she signed the Agreement. ...

A notice or other communication is considered to be made available if it is posted by the Minister in the individual’s secure electronic account and the individual has authorized that notices or other communications may be made available in this manner and has not before that date revoked that authorization in a manner specified by the Minister. ... As such, counsel was not in a position to provide any submissions in response to the Court’s inquiries. [29] In my view, this inconsistency in the evidentiary record before the Officer, combined with the absence of any analysis in the Decision that addresses the inconsistency or, indeed, identifies at all the evidence underlying the conclusion that the 2021 NOA was sent to the Applicant electronically in July 2022, necessarily undermines the reasonableness of the Decision. [30] In so concluding, I have considered the Respondent’s submission that the Decision Letter notes not only that the Applicant’s overcontribution to her TFSA was not removed in 2022 but also that her TFSA remained in excess throughout 2023. ...

., 97 DTC 5060 (FCAD), the Federal Court of Appeal considered whether the Tax Court had rightly struck certain paragraphs of a notice of appeal. ... In Zhou the Federal Court of Appeal considered whether a CRA official’s statements or actions pertaining to an assessment are relevant. ...

  [20]          Finally, the partners agreed that amounts payable in respect of the retirement allowance should be considered a share of the partnership's income for tax purposes ...   [28]          Income from the profits of a partnership cannot be considered pension income within the meaning of subsection 118(7) of the ITA. ...

The impugned evidence includes Exhibits 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12 and 15. [31] As a general rule, evidence that was not before an administrative decision-maker cannot be considered in a judicial review: White v Canada Post Corporation, 2024 FC 198 at para 13 [White]. ... As I will discuss further below, the issue of eligibility is beyond this Court’s jurisdiction and so the evidence is not relevant and will not be considered in any case: see Zaki v Canada (National Revenue), 2018 FC 928 at para 25 [Zaki]. [36] Exhibit 8 is the Applicant’s Notice of Objection filed with the CRA. ...

Once a potential issue is apparent, by any means, s. 18.12 of the TCC Act is activated and the issue must be considered and determined. ... There is no reason why they would not remain separate the way that income tax assessments remain separate for purposes of the monetary limit and the threshold in s. 2.1 of the TCC Act. [23] This separation between individual determinations remains the case whether a set of determinations concerns the same facts, issue(s) and legislation, since the essential principle remains that individual determinations are made for separate qualifying periods: factually, the period is different. [24] The above‑noted conclusion regarding notices of determination is reinforced by the reasoning deployed by this Court in Maier, [10] which stated that it would be strange if the rules dictated a different result depending on whether the taxpayer filed a series of notices of appeal as opposed to a single notice of appeal including all disputed assessments (or, as in this case, determinations). [25] The Appellant argued that this Court’s reasons in Fullum may apply. [11] However, while Fullum involved the aggregation of all disputed amounts for the purpose of surpassing a monetary limit, it considered s. 17.3(1) of the TCC Act and a motion seeking an order for oral examination for discovery. ...