Search - considered

To the contrary, the list of factors in Rule 400(3) inform the genus or class of matters that may be considered under Rule 400(3)(o), but does not otherwise restrict it: Walker v. ... Rather, settlement proposals or offers that do not meet the conditions of Rule 420 may be considered under Rule 400 in making a costs award: Dimplex North America Ltd. v. ... In both, in making costs awards, the Federal Court considered offers to settle that the Federal Court described as not “formal or substantive enough to satisfy Rule 420”. ...

The requested undertakings in issue in this appeal must be considered in light of the issue that is to be ultimately determined in this matter. ... The Tax Court Judge should have considered the facts that were applicable in the other cases where the relevance of the documents was established by the Crown or where the documents were considered in the course of the audit. ... The correspondence in issue was not considered in the course of the audit of the taxpayer. ...

  [2]                In concluding as she did, the Tax Court judge considered the relevant sections of the Income Tax Act, namely subsection 165(3) which requires the Minister to notify a taxpayer in writing of his decision upon review of a notice of objection, subsection 169(1) which requires a taxpayer to file an appeal with the Tax Court within 90 days of the Minister’s mailing of the notice of confirmation and subsection 167(5) which allows a taxpayer to apply, within one year after the expiry of the 90 day period prescribed by subsection 169(1), for an extension of time for the filing of a notice of appeal ...   [4]                We note that in concluding that the Minister had complied within the requirements of subsection 165(3) the judge considered the appellant’s argument that he had not received the Minister’s letter of October 5, 2001 by reason of the fact that he did not, at the time, have a fixed address until December 1, 2001 ...   [6]                We also note that the judge considered the appellant’s argument that he was misled by post October 5, 2001 correspondence received from the Minister.  ...

  [2]                Cost awards are highly discretionary and this Court can only interfere if the judge considered irrelevant facts, failed to consider relevant factors or reached a conclusion that is plainly wrong ...   [7]                In his reasons, the judge properly identified the relevant principles and the factors to be considered in exercising his discretionary power over costs. ...   [9]                 We note that contrary to Prévost’s argument the judge considered that the respondent had acted in an efficient and reasonable way throughout. ...

In so concluding, she considered the appellant’s version of the events in which he asserted that because, at the time of the sale, he and the purchaser had a dispute regarding the purchase price, which was only settled in March 2008, it was open to him to treat the disposition as having occurred in 2008. [4]                The judge also considered the fact that the sale had occurred by way of a deed of sale before a notary on December 18, 2007 and that in the deed, the appellant, as vendor, had acknowledged having received the purchase price of $285,000 from the purchaser and in respect of which he gave a complete discharge. [5]                She also gave consideration to the appellant’s testimony to the effect that he had received advice from someone at the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that he could include his income in the 2008 taxation year. [6]                After proper consideration, she concluded that the capital gain had to be declared in 2007. [7]                We have not been persuaded that the judge made any error in concluding as she did on this issue. [8]                The second issue which the judge had to determine is the amount of capital gain made by the appellant as a result of the sale of his property. ... The CRA refused the addition. [9]                Again the judge carefully considered the evidence, including the appellant’s testimony that he had effected repairs to the property in 2002, prior to his purchase thereof, with the consent of the previous owner. [10]            She also considered the appellant’s evidence that he had lost all of his supporting vouchers and documents in 2008 as a result of a flood in the basement of the house he was living in at the time. [11]            The judge also noted the appellant’s testimony to the effect that he had filed, with his 2000 income tax return, copies of these vouchers and documents. [12]            In the end, the judge found it difficult to believe the appellant’s explanations and she indicated in her reasons why this was so. ...

When the evidence is viewed as a whole, however, I conclude that the mother, Karen Putnam, has marginally more input into the care and guidance of Braden than does the father. [9]                 The Tax Court Judge then considered paragraph (h) in section 6302. ... If the content of that Judgment is duplicative of the matters already considered by the Tax Court Judge in her own analysis, then it cannot serve to tip the balance in favour of the mother. ... It seems to me that when the Tax Court Judge considered the same Corollary Relief Judgment again, in concluding that the Judgment tipped the weight significantly in favour of the mother, that she was inadvertently engaging in double counting. ...

The only issue in this case is whether those additional benefits "... may reasonably be considered to be... a repayment or return by the corporation... of all or part of the consideration for which the share was issued... ... The Tax Court Judge held that the benefits could not be so considered. ... The definition of "prescribed shares" does not include every benefit offered to the investor, but only those that may "reasonably be considered" to be a return of part of the consideration provided for the shares. ...

Appliction allowed. 1 ‘The term “eligible individual” is defined in section 122.6 in part as follows: In this subdivision, “eligible individual” in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the respon sibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant, (c) is resident in Canada,... and, for the purposes of this definition, (h) factors to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing may be set out in regulations made by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of National Health and Welfare; 2 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 depen dant; (b) the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified depen dant resides; (c) the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular inter vals 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 depen dant; (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 dependent 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. ...

S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act") which allows maintenance paid prior to a separation agreement to be treated as though it were paid pursuant thereto is subsection 60.1(3) which at the relevant time read: 60.1(3) Prior payments-For the purposes of this section and section 60, where a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or a written agreement made at any time in a taxation year provides that an amount paid before that time and in the year or the immediately preceding taxation year is to be considered as having been paid and received pursuant thereto, the following rules apply: (a) the amount shall be deemed to have been paid pursuant thereto; and (b) the person who made the payment shall be deemed to have been separated pursuant to a divorce, judicial separation or written separation agreement from his spouse or former spouse at the time the payment was made and throughout the remainder of the year. We are all of the view that the plain meaning of this text requires that the agreement, unlike clause 14 (above), must provide that prior payments shall be considered as having been paid and received pursuant thereto. ...

Canada (National Revenue), 2013 FCA 85, 444 N.R. 163 at para. 41). [4]                In large measure, the appellant is asking this Court to re-weigh the evidence considered by the judge in his application of the facts to the proper legal test. ... The judge considered the Spark chat log and the submissions by counsel, and decided that only the first 10 pages were required for the limited purpose for which the evidence was being tendered. ... Put another way, he considered that he could determine the issue with only the workers’ evidence before him. ...