Search - considered

(c)      There is no fixed list of indicia, all relevant factors are to be considered; the relevance and weight of the indicia will vary with the context. (d)     Among the matters to be considered are compulsory attendance at a workplace, the fairly regular assignment of work, imposition of rules of conduct, responsibility for management, requirement of activity reports, control over the quantity or quality of the work done, the ability to hire helpers, ownership of tools, the investment made by the worker, chance of profit or loss and the degree of risk. [11]         With these principles in mind, let us turn to the evidence. The Facts [12]         The Minister made his determination on the following basis: [12] The Appellant (a)        the Appellant operated a music school; (b)        the Appellant operated as sole-proprietor; (c)        the Appellant registered the business on October 15, 1998; (d)       the Appellant operated under the name Vimont Musique; (e)        the Appellant had 350 to 400 students; (f)        the business hours were Monday to Friday from 2:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. and Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; (g)        the Appellant hired 20 teachers and 4 to 5 administrative employees; (h)        the Appellant sold books and materials related to the courses; The Workers (i)         the Workers were hired as music teachers by the Appellant; (j)         Lionel Charles gave lessons in bass, guitar and ukulele; (k)        Maxime Capuano gave guitar lessons; (l)         Kim Derome gave piano lessons; (m)       Jessica Muneret gave guitar lessons; (n)        Amélie Poupart gave piano lessons; (o)        the Workers gave lessons to the clients of the Appellant; (p)        the Workers and the Appellant were dealing with each other at arm’s length; (q)        the Workers gave lessons at the Appellant’s business location; (r)        the Workers performed their duties during the business hours of the music school; (s)        the Appellant established the schedule for the lessons; (t)        the Appellant managed the Workers’ schedules; (u)        the Workers and the Appellant entered into written contracts; (v)        the Appellant provided the Workers with specific instructions on the work to be completed; (w)       the Appellant required that the material covered in the lessons included solfeggio (note reading), ear training and music theory; (x)        the Appellant imposed a dress code; (y)        the Workers were required to keep the students’ parents up to date on their progress; (z)        the Workers required the Appellant’s permission if they needed to be absent; (aa)      the Workers provided their own musical instruments; (bb)      certain instruments such as the piano and drums were provided by the Appellant, to facilitate teaching; (cc)      the Appellant provided the premises where the music lessons took place; (dd)     the Workers were paid between $16.00 to $20.00 dollars per hour by the Appellant; (ee)      the Workers’ hourly rate was determined by the Appellant; (ff)       the hourly rate was based on experience, seniority and education; (gg)      the Workers were paid by cheque; (hh)      the Workers were paid every two weeks; (ii)        the Appellant established the fee for the lessons; (jj)        the clients paid about $40.00 per hour for the lessons; (kk)      the clients paid the Appellant for the lessons; (ll)        the Workers did not invoice the Appellant; (mm)    the Appellant provided a pay slip to each worker for the period from January to June and another for the period from September to December for each year; (nn)      the Workers had to sign the pay slip; (oo)      the clients were exclusively the Appellants; [13] (pp)      the Appellant prohibited the exchange of phone numbers or contact information between the Workers and the clients; (qq)      the Workers did not incur expenses; (rr)       the Appellant considered the Workers to be self-employed; and (ss)       the Appellant issued T4 slips to the Workers in 2012. [13]         The Appellant disagrees with many of the factual assumptions. [14]         The Appellant testified as well as two of the workers, Amélie Poupart and Kim Derome. [14] Intention [15]         After this section I examine the indicia of supervision as shown by the actual behaviour. [15] That examination leads to a clear conclusion as to the nature of the contractual relationship even if I assume that in this case the intention was to have a contract for services ...

The concept of a business is defined in section 123 of the ETA: "business" includes a profession, calling, trade, manufacture or undertaking of any kind whatever, whether the activity or undertaking is engaged in for profit, and any activity engaged in on a regular or continuous basis that involves the supply of property by way of lease, licence or similar arrangement, but does not include an office or employment. [59]         A commercial activity is defined as follows in section 123 of the ETA: commercial activity of a person means (a) a business carried on by the person (other than a business carried on without a reasonable expectation of profit by an individual, a personal trust or a partnership, all of the members of which are individuals), except to the extent to which the business involves the making of exempt supplies by the person, (b) an adventure or concern of the person in the nature of trade (other than an adventure or concern engaged in without a reasonable expectation of profit by an individual, a personal trust or a partnership, all of the members of which are individuals), except to the extent to which the adventure or concern involves the making of exempt supplies by the person, and (c) the making of a supply (other than an exempt supply) by the person of real property of the person, including anything done by the person in the course of or in connection with the making of the supply. [60]         The law is well settled: the illegal sale of drugs constitutes a commercial activity and that the resulting cannabis supplies are considered to be taxable supplies for GST purposes. ... This evidence must be considered as a whole. Alternative audit method [79]         Subsection 286(1) of the ETA sets out the obligation of a business owner to keep books and records: 286(1) Keeping books and records Every person who carries on a business or is engaged in a commercial activity in Canada, every person who is required under this Part to file a return and every person who makes an application for a rebate or refund shall keep records in English or in French in Canada, or at such other place and on such terms and conditions as the Minister may specify in writing, in such form and containing such information as will enable the determination of the person’s liabilities and obligations under this Part or the amount of any rebate or refund to which the person is entitled. [80]         An alternative audit method can be used by the Minister in order to reconstruct a taxpayer’s income in certain circumstances. [81]         In Desroches v. ... Indeed, photograph #104 in Exhibit A‑2 was not considered by Ms. Caza. [98]         Consequently, there is a discrepancy in the average price per pound of cannabis, which would be $1,446 rather than $1,454, and the average gross sales per harvest would be $38,968 and the average net profit per harvest would be $14,502: Quantity (pounds) Price/pound Gross sales Profit Photo 121 28 $1,400 $39,200 $14,436 Photo 121 33 $1,575 $51,975 $20,925 Photo 121 36 $1,450 $52,200 $20,530 Photo 121 22 $1,450 $31,900 $11,150 Photo 121 35 $1,400 $49,000 $18,725 Photo 57 18 $1,450 $26,100  $8,723 Photo 104 16 $1,400 $22,400  $7,025 Average 27 $1,446 $38,968 $14,502 Total 188 $10,125 $272,775 $101,514 [99]         The ARQ auditor, Ms.  ...

He was not an independent witness nor could he be considered an expert witness for the purposes of evaluating his own software. ... Bapty in his report with respect to the amount of costs that he considered eligible was the following statement: If the project is demonstrated to qualify, some costs are expected to substantiate the technical improvement.... ... While both Miller and Weber could not be considered expert witnesses and they were far from being independent, I have no difficulty in concluding that the Corporation made a prima facie case that was not rebutted by Mr. ...

As such, the Question cannot be dispositive of any of the elements of the SR&ED definition. [39]          Whether other industry participants have achieved a particular or similar advancement is a relevant fact that would be considered in determining the first and fourth questions (technological uncertainty and technological advancement, respectively) in the five-factor test. ... Other considerations and the circumstances [47]          The repetitive and permissive language in Rule 58 confirms that the motions judge is not limited to considering only the statutory conditions in subsections 58(1) and (2) of the Rules. [41] The motions judge has the discretion to consider other factors, together with all the circumstances of the case, in order to decide whether the proposed question is appropriate for a Rule 58 determination. [42] [48]          In Banque National, former Chief Justice Bowman considered a motion that was based on a previous iteration of Rule 58. ...   [33]             Transcript, page 55. [34]             Respondent’s Written Submissions, paragraph 50. [35]             Highweb & Page Group Inc. v Canada, 2015 TCC 137, 2015 DTC 1143 at para 18; Tacto Neuro Sensory Devices Inc. v Canada, 2004 TCC 341, [2004] TCJ no 328 (QL); Blue Wave Seafoods Inc. v Canada, 2004 TCC 553, 2004 DTC 3066 at para 54; Hypercube Inc. v Canada, 2015 TCC 65, 2015 DTC 1089 at paras 44 and 45; Zeuter Development Corp. v Canada, 2006 TCC 597, 2007 DTC 41 at para 22 and R&D PRO-Innovation Inc. v Canada, 2015 TCC 186, 2015 DTC 1170, aff’d 2016 FCA 152. [36]             Respondent’s Written Submissions, paragraphs 51 and 52. [37]             In Suncor, supra note 3 at para 28, the prospect of success factor is considered dispositive. [38]         Sentinel Hill, supra note 7, aff’d 2014 FCA 161, 2014 DTC 5089 (FCA) at paras 3 and 6. ...

Wolf argued, in accordance with the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Du Pont, [15] there was sufficient “interlacing and interdependence” between his Canadian and US activities for them to be considered part of the same enterprise. [16] [19]   In addition, Mr. ... This commentary should be considered in interpreting subparagraph 9(a) of Article V as the Federal Court of Appeal has recognized the importance of the OECD commentaries where the language of a convention is based on OECD material: The   Queen v. ... Revenues from three sources must be considered: a)   The amount of US$233,197 representing the enterprise’s share of the profits from sales of fuel lines by Davis Aircraft Inc. b)   The amount of US$46,143 representing the enterprise’s share of the profits from sublicensing of the Patent. c)   The amount of CAD$26,244 representing the amount received for the engineering services provided in Canada. [54]   The phrase “gross active business revenues” is not defined in the Convention or in the ITA. ...

AG, [1911] 1 KB 410 at paragraphs 418-419, the Court indicated that “this power of arresting an action and deciding it without a trial is one to be very sparingly used, and rarely, if ever, excepting in cases where the action is an abuse of legal procedure…our judicial system would never permit a plaintiff to be ‘driven from the judgment seat’ in this way without any Court having considered his right to be heard, excepting in cases where the cause of action was obviously and almost incontestably bad”. [18]   In his order to strike the Amended Reply, Paris J. stated that “for a pleading to be struck without leave to amend, the defect in the pleading must be one that is not curable by amendment”. ... The Queen, the Tax Court of Canada stated that taxpayers have the right to disagree with the Minister in their interpretation of the Act, without this necessarily being considered a misrepresentation… In this case, there was enough information to justify the interpretation adopted by the Appellant”. [30]   The Appellant alleges that its misinterpretation is the reason why it reported the gain in its T1044, which is the form for exempt activities, rather than reporting it in the T3, which is the form for reporting taxable income. In the Appellant’s view, the proper characterization of disclosed facts cannot be considered a misrepresentation, citing Ver v. ...

There are no new transactions in my view of the type considered in Pedwell that must be considered in the application of 15(2) versus 15(1). ... She had to know that they were not filed because there were reorganization and take-over plans being considered to utilize another company's losses.   ...

With regards to Kerry Canada’s argument that the Second CA Request should be considered an implied waiver, the Decision states: Implied Waivers Our review of the facts and circumstances of the case has resulted in our conclusion that CRA has no legal basis on which to reassess the 2002 and 2003 years beyond their respective statute-barred dates as per section 152(4)(c) of the Income Tax Act. [72]   I find that the reasons provided in the Decision were inadequate. ... Therefore, the jurisprudence cited by the Respondent does not assist in supporting the Decision as reasonable. [73]   I have also considered the Rule 317 materials provided to Kerry Canada. ... Nicotera considered whether Kerry Canada had provided an implied waiver for the 2002 and 2003 taxation years. ...

Reasonable grounds to believe require “something more than mere suspicion, but less than the standard applicable in civil matters of proof on the balance of probabilities” and will exist where “there is an objective basis for the belief which is based on compelling and credible information” (Mugesera v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 40 at paras 114-117; see also Hadian at para 17)). [41]   A number of recent decisions of this Court have considered the scope of paragraph 34(1)(d) of the IRPA in the context of individuals who were associated with research institutions that worked on the Iranian government’s nuclear programs (Moghaddam v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1063 (Moghaddam); Hadian, supra). ... I am mindful of the principle set out by the SCC in Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62 (Newfoundland Nurses) that the reasons given by a decision-maker must be read together with the outcome of a case and that a decision must be considered in light of the evidentiary record to determine whether the result falls within the range of possible outcomes. ... Analysis – Threats against the YDM bloggers [48]   As stated above, the ID comprehensively summarized and considered both parties’ submissions in the Decision. ...

The involvement of the Attorney General of Alberta in the leave motions [8]   The respondents took no position on eleven of the twelve leave motions because they considered the threshold for leave to be quite low. ... The “material deficiency” in that case was major and glaring: the National Energy Board failed to examine the issue of project-related marine shipping as part of the project. [42]   Since this Court’s decision in Tsleil-Waututh Nation, the National Energy Board addressed this material deficiency by providing a comprehensive, detail-laden, 678-page report to the Governor in Council that considered the issue of project-related marine shipping and related issues and suggested measures for mitigating effects. The Governor in Council considered the new report, as is evident from the Order in Council it issued. [43]   Many of the applicants submit that the new report is so flawed that the Governor in Council still lacks the necessary legal prerequisite of a “report” under section 54. ...