Search - considered

The operation of the mink ranch, which had in some of the previous years yielded a profit and which the directors considered as a possible source of income, was discontinued because of a disaster which struck the mink and because of the hazardous nature of the undertaking and the land was thereafter held by the appellant merely as land. ... The directors of the appellant, conscious of their obligations as trustees, considered it expedient to ascertain if any other persons were interested in purchasing the lands at a higher price, inserted a small advertisement in the classified section in one issue of a local newspaper which resulted in two enquiries. ... Options will be considered.” Having received the request from Sarah Diamond for an option on a portion of the lands, Mr. ...

In the Notification of the Minister the respondent, having reconsidered the assessment and having considered the facts and reasons set forth in the Notice of Objection, notified the taxpayer of his intention to reassess the income as follows: Amount received from Agency of The Canadian In Exhibit A-2 and the schedule thereto (filed on behalf of the appellant), the gross receipts by Mrs. ... The last payment of $8,395 received by Breed, Abbott and Morgan on January 13, 1949, must be considered separately. ... I fail to understand how a payment can be considered as having been “received” when, in fact, it was withheld. ...

The intention of the officers of the respondent corporation with regard to the cars in question is relevant, as will be stated later, and the foregoing testimony will be considered in that connection. ... C.R. 244; [1948] C.T.C. 55, a similar problem was considered by O’Connor, J., and he held that the whole of a company’s undistributed income had been capitalized but not the good-will. ... He found that they were not worn out or obsolete and said at page 163: 1 find it impossible to reach any other conclusion than that they were always considered as part of the inventory which would later be sold in the normal course of business. ...

& N. 838, in which it was said by Lord Chief Baron Pollock that they were of the opinion that if the production of a State paper would be injurious to the service, the general public interest must be considered paramount to the individual interest of the suitor in a court of justice; and the question then arose how it was to be determined. ... Cases might arise where the matter would be so clear that the Judge might ask for it in spite of some official scruples as to producing it, but that this must be considered rather an extreme case, throwing very little light on the practical rules of life. ... Skene supra, that the general public interest must be considered paramount to the individual interest of a suitor in a Court of Justice; and at pp. 642-3 he said when these conditions are satisfied and the Minister feels it his duty to deny access to material which otherwise be available, there is no question but that the public interest must be preferred to any private consideration. ...

This is the sub-condition the Court found the Appellant has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities. [48] Actual use of the property may be evidence in some cases of the taxpayer’s intention; however, it is not conclusive. [5] The Tax Court has held that a variety of indicia can be considered to determine whether the subjective intent is supported across the waypoints of occupancy: i) demarcation of primary place of residence by change of address; ii) the relocation of sufficient personal effects to the rebate property; iii) if no occupancy of the residence, was there cogent evidence of frustration of occupancy; iv) permanent occupant insurance versus seasonal or rental coverage; v) delivery of possession of previous primary residence to another; vi) if dual occupancy continues, then the rebate property must be more frequently occupied, more convenient to third party locations such as work, more convenient amenities and more suitable to the needs of the taxpayer. [6] [49] However, u ltimately, what is required is: [7] In the end, there are numerous decisions, each turning on their own facts, on the issue of a purchaser’s intention to acquire a residence as a “primary place of residence” for the purposes of the rebate. 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. ... According to the Appellant, it wasn’t really reasonable at that point. [64] I n Fard, Deputy Judge Masse referring to Sozio  [11] held that in order to invoke frustration as an excuse for a failure to actually use the rebate property as a primary place of residence, the surrounding circumstances must be such as to make the frustrating event unforeseeable, beyond the buyer’s control, and results in the absence of real choice such that it makes living primarily and habitually at the rebate property impossible. [12] [65] The surrounding circumstances to be considered for a finding of frustrated intent must be the circumstances existing at the appropriate time. ...

These are the reasons. [29] In deciding to admit the materials, I considered (i) whether the evidence would assist the Court because of its relevance and its probative value; (ii) whether admitting the evidence would cause substantial or serious prejudice to the other side; and (iii) whether the evidence was available when Mr. ... Second, The Minister submits that the issue of whether the You Affidavit should be filed into the record can only be considered by the Court in the event that Mr. ... The Minister contends that Exhibit ABM‑14 was not considered by Ms. Petit or provided in support of her affidavit, because, as explained by Ms. ...

[paragraph 23] … [16] This Court has held that in drawing the line between “ordinary” negligence or neglect and “gross” negligence, a number of factors have to be considered: (a) The magnitude of the misrepresentation in relation to the income declared; (b) The opportunity the taxpayer had to detect the error; (c) The taxpayer’s education and apparent intelligence; and (d) The genuine effort to comply. [17] Each factor must be assigned the appropriate weight in the context of the overall picture that emerges based on the evidence. [5] [18] T he objective standard against which the conduct of the taxpayer is measured is that of the expected conduct of a reasonable person in the same circumstances as the taxpayer. ... She remarked neither Notices provided the information nor documentation CRA had previously sought thus considered them irrelevant. [16] In cross-examination, she said recalls the last Notice but he never responded to her requests. [38] After taking into consideration the history of how Mr. ... Miller set out a framework, (i) to (iv) below, and summarized certain principles. [20] (i) Education and experience [46] Education and experience is to be considered in determining whether there was wilful blindness. ...

[48]   In this appeal, the parties agree that if there is an income source, it is a business (not property). [42] Where the activity: (a) appears to be clearly commercial, (b) contains no personal or hobby element, and (c) the evidence is consistent with the view that the activity is conducted for profit, then a source of income exists for the purposes of the Act. [49] However, where the activity could be considered a personal pursuit, then one must ask if the activity is being carried on in a sufficiently commercial manner so as to be a source of income. [50] [43] When determining whether a taxpayer is carrying on the activity in a sufficiently commercial manner, the non-exhaustive list of objective factors include: (1) profit and loss experience in past years, (2) the taxpayer’s training, (3) the taxpayer’s intended course of action, and (4) the capability of the activity to show a profit. [51] The factors will vary depending on the nature and extent of the activity. [52] This determination is not an evaluation of the taxpayer’s business acumen but, rather, the commercial nature of the activity in question. [53] [44] The question of whether a business exists is separate from the deductibility of expenses. [54] In order to be deductible against business income, the expense must be incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the business. [55] It will not be deductible against business income if it is a personal or living expense [56] or if it is unreasonable in the circumstances. [57] VI. ... Activities which might be considered personal versus business-related overlapped regularly. ... [53] While I have found that there was a business source of income in the form of wholesale luxury auto sales, it was also a source without much business conducted during the years in question. [54] As discussed above, activities which might be considered personal versus business-related overlapped regularly. ...

Since no notice of appeal was filed within this 180-day-period and no application to extend the time to file a notice of appeal was filed within one year from the end of this 180-day-period, the time to appeal the “determination” could not be extended. [18] The Tax Court Judge then considered the application for a rebate of the GST that was paid. ... F-7 limits the powers of this Court in this appeal to dismissing the appeal, giving the decision that the Tax Court should have given, or referring the matter back to the Tax Court with such directions as are considered appropriate. ... Canada, 2018 FCA 119, confirmed that procedural and jurisdictional provisions applicable to the ETA will apply even if a claim is based on constitutional rights and treaty rights of Indigenous peoples: [4] … In private, personal claims such as this, procedural and jurisdictional provisions apply and must be obeyed even where the constitutional rights and treaty rights of Indigenous peoples are asserted … [28] Therefore, the procedural and jurisdictional provisions applicable to bringing an appeal to the Tax Court under the ETA must be considered and applied. ...

Applicable Legal Principles [37] Rule 84(2) of the Federal Courts Rules provides that a party who has cross-examined the deponent of an affidavit filed in an application may not subsequently file an affidavit in that application, except with the consent of all other parties or with leave of the Court. [38] As applications are summary proceedings that should be determined without undue delay, the discretion of the Court to permit the filing of additional material should be exercised with great circumspection [see Mazhero v Canada (Industrial Relations Board), 2002 FCA 295 at para 5]. [39] The following factors must be considered and weighed by the Court in determining whether to grant leave: (i) the relevance of the proposed evidence; (ii) whether the proposed evidence was available and/or could be anticipated as being relevant prior to the cross-examinations; (iii) absence of prejudice to the opposing party; (iv) whether the proposed evidence assists the Court in making its final determination; and (v) whether the proposed evidence serves the interests of justice [see Janssen-Ortho Inc v Canada (Health), 2009 FC 1179 at para 9; Pfizer Canada Inc v Rhoxalpharma Inc, 2004 FC 1685 at para 16; Havi Global Solutions LLC v IS Container PTE Ltd, 2020 FC 803 at paras 6 and 33, 39-40 [Havi]; NOCO Company, Inc v Guangzhou Unique Electronics Co, Ltd, 2023 FC 208 at para 59]. [40] The factors noted above are not discrete, mandatory requirements. Rather, they are factors that must be considered by the Court and weighed when determining whether to exercise the Court’s discretion to grant leave. ... I find that the inclusion of this evidence is a clear attempt by the Respondents to improperly remedy a deficiency in their evidentiary record. [64] Having considered and weighed the various factors, I am not satisfied that the Respondents have demonstrated that the Court should exercise its discretion to grant them leave to file the Grater Affidavit. ...