Search - considered

These notes, after recognizing that “[a]t common law the presence of a consideration of any value whatsoever makes a gift impossible” and that “[a]s such, at common law a contract to dispose of a property to a charity at a price below fair market value would not generally be considered to include a gift”, go on to state that “ [n]evertheless, there have been certain decisions made under the common law where it has been found that a transfer of property to a charity was made partly in consideration for services and partly as a gift ”. ... In upholding the Tax Court’s decision, denying the tax credit claimed, this Court endorsed paragraph 49 of Woods J.’s reasons holding that the $20,000 portion of the transfer lacked the requisite donative intent (Maréchaux FCA at para. 12): There is just one interconnected transaction here, and no part of it can be considered a gift that the appellant gave in expectation of no return. ...

Later, when access was provided the application was rendered moot. 15        But for that error of principle, the Judge would have considered Mr. ... The Judge would also have considered that Mr. Dagg was provided with the requested records after the application for judicial review was commenced, some 20 months after the access request had been filed. ...

It has been suggested that a fourfold test would in some cases be more appropriate, a complex involving (1) control; (2) ownership of the tools; (3) chance of profit; (4) risk of loss. [32]          MacGuigan J. interpreted Lord Wright's test not as a fourfold test but rather as a four-in-one test, with emphasis always retained on what Lord Wright called "[t]he combined force of the whole scheme of operations", even while the usefulness of the four subordinate criteria is acknowledged. [33]          MacGuigan J. ended his ratio by referring, at p. 5030, to what he considered the best synthesis, namely that of Cooke J. in Market Investigations, Ltd. v. ... 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. ...

Arguin answered essentially that if the appellant and his employers did not want to submit to the kind of investigation he considered adequate, he would render a decision on the basis of the documents and reports in his possession. ... He also asserted that a number of the facts considered by the Minister had proven to be inaccurate. ...

Workers also received extra pay for overtime; time in excess of 180 hours a month was considered overtime. ... 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 be taken, 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. ...

Should his activity not be sufficiently profitable, he may augment his farming income through other economic activities. [24] Sometimes, people whose major occupational concern is not farming will be nevertheless be sufficiently interested in farming and invest enough effort and financial resources for their farming business to be considered a business for restricted farm loss purposes. I say may be considered a business for restricted farm loss purposes because such an operation will only rarely be classified as a business for the purposes of sections 3 and 9 and paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Act. ...

On the authority of subparagraph 52(c)(ii) of the Federal Court Act which gives the Court of Appeal the discretionary power, in the case of an appeal other than an appeal from the Trial Division, to ‘refer the matter back for determination in accordance with such directions as it considers to be appropriate’, I have reached the conclusion that the new argument raised before us by the appellant with respect to the cost amount should be considered by this Court, but that in the special circumstances of this case, where arguably more complete evidence is required, it would be appropriate to have it determined by the Tax Court of Canada on the evidence that is in the record or on such further evidence as it may allow. ... Each of these conditions, actual or supposed, will now be considered in turn.” ...

Charpentier did not ask him questions relating to specific days spent on each activity and it was not until later, with the help of his diaries, that he was able to establish in greater detail how he used his time, and he now estimates that he spent an average of two days a week on engineering and five days a week on the farm. [27] Counsel for the appellant cited a number of decisions, and argued that despite certain weaknesses the situation in the instant cases should be considered favourably in light of the tests applied by the courts, in particular as regards the time spent on farm activities and the energy the appellant put into ensuring that his facilities were of exceptional quality. ... As well, noting that there were no animals on the farm until 1990 and that the first stable was built in that year, counsel for the respondent considered that the time the appellant spent working on his land was exaggerated. ...

It is my considered opinion that that phrase includes an assessment made under clause (10) of section 227.1. ... The Appellant must be considered as an inside director and the onus on him as set forth in the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Soper is an onerous one. ...

Counsel for the respondent did not object to the filing of the Affidavit of Deanne Kong Ting as Exhibit A-13 or the Affidavit of Sandy Prescott as Exhibit A-14 by way of evidence pursuant to Rule 25(1) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules respecting Unemployment Insurance Act appeals. [5]            Counsel for the respondent did not cross-examine or call any witnesses. [6]            Counsel for the appellant submitted it was evident the Minister had not considered relevant facts in arriving at the determination. ... Wrights' Canadian Ropes Ltd., contends the respondent, unless the Minister has not had regard to all the circumstances of the employment (as required by subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii) of the Act), has considered irrelevant factors, or has acted in contravention of some principle of law, the court may not interfere. ...