Search - considered

The other factors considered by the Tax Court judge were: 1.         The Applicant did not have a marketing plan, nor did she advertise. 2.         ... The Applicants expenses consistently exceeded her rental income and the Applicant's calculations as to future profitability were not realistic. [10]            The Tax Court judge carefully considered these factors and concluded that the Applicant had not carried on a business in 1996 and 1997. [11]            In spite of the fact that the Tax Court judge did not have the benefit of the reasons of the Supreme Court in Stewart, we nevertheless are of the view that his analysis is consistent with the reasoning in the decisions in Stewart and [1978] 1 S.C.R. 480 "> Moldowan. [12]            We are unable to detect any reversible error in the Tax Court judge's assessment of the evidence or his analysis of the appropriate factors to be considered in determining whether or not the Applicant was carrying on a business. [13]            The application will therefore by dismissed. ...

., indicated that the factors to be considered in determining whether or not an extension of time to commence an appeal should be extended were as follows: [6]     In deciding whether or not to grant an extension of time to commence an appeal, the basic test is whether the interests of justice favour granting the extension. The factors to be considered are conveniently summarized in Karon Resources Inc. v. ...   [13]            Although the delay has not been excessive and there is no evidence that the respondent would be prejudiced by an extension of time, it is my view that in the particular circumstances of the case, the factors which must be considered dictate that the time to appeal the Minister’s Notice of Confirmation should not be extended ...

While in a case like this the retaining of counsel is no doubt deserving of very significant weight and is often determinative, other factors—such as those the Federal Court identified and considered here—also fall for consideration. ... L.R. (2d) 285, 151 N.R. 76 sets out factors that must be considered whenever a party requests an adjournment. ... We are satisfied that the Federal Court had an adequate basis in the material before it and the submissions made to it to decide upon the adjournment request. [10]            The principles governing whether or not an adjournment should be granted are set out in the principles of procedural fairness and the factors in Rule 3 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106. [11]            The Federal Court considered the aspects of these principles that were live on the facts of this case and, in doing so, committed no error in law or in legal principle. [12]            We note that the appellants did not challenge the merits of the Federal Court’s granting of the respondent’s application. ...

We have considered your analogy between aboriginal people and immigrant women as disadvantaged groups in society. ... Women do not meet this criteria; the courts have not considered women simply by virtue of their gender or racial origin to be in special need of charitable relief. ... (a), to be charitable, must be achieved through activities that are considered to be advancing education within the meaning of charity law. ...

In the circumstances of this case, it considered it inefficient and procedurally unfair to do so. [7] These were factually suffused questions of mixed fact and law and the assessment of the weight and significance of evidence that can be overturned only for an extricable error in principle or palpable and overriding error: Housen v. ... The Minister also says that the Tax Court did not “turn its mind” to a variety of things. [11] The Minister develops that submission by impermissibly parsing the Tax Court’s reasons and assuming that anything not said in the reasons was not considered. ... As well, it is presumed that the judge considered all of the evidence in the record: Housen at para. 46. [13] The Minister also submits that the Tax Court erred by finding the application was an abuse of process. ...

It decided that, since the corrected tax information was not before the second reviewer when the Decisions were made, and either did not fall within any of the exceptions to the general principle or was of no assistance to the Court in determining the issues to be decided, it could not form the basis for a finding that it was unreasonable for the second reviewer not to have considered it. ... Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 559 at para. 46. [5] After having carefully considered the parties’ oral and written submissions and the record, I find that the Federal Court correctly identified and applied the reasonableness standard to review the merits of the Decisions: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. ... Elykova conceded before this Court and before the Federal Court that the Decisions were reasonable unless the corrected tax information was considered. ...

If, for example, two corporations carry on a business in partnership as equal partners with the partnership business employing more than five full-time employees, each partner would, for the purpose of paragraph (a) of the definition of "specified investment business" in subsection 125(7), be considered to employ more than five full-time employees. ... Therefore the object of the new legislation was to ensure that the business of a corporation that invested in rental properties would not be considered "active" unless there was sufficient activity in the corporation's business to justify the employment of over five full-time employees. [7]      He then found that the appellant employed two full-time employees and shared the expenses of fifteen others. ... In the relevant taxation years, this approach would attribute 5.05 to 5.35 full-time employees to Lerric, depending upon the taxation years in question. [16]      This allocation approach does not suffer from the same impediment as the first approach, i.e. double or multiple counting of the same employees, such that the same employee is considered to be employed full-time by more than one employer. ...

It is equally evident that, considered in isolation, the horse business was not Mr Craig’s “chief source of income” in the taxation years in question ...   [11]            Writing for the Court in Gunn, Justice Sharlow considered Moldowan at length and largely adopted its analytical framework. ... This Court pointed out that the previous panel clearly had considered that jurisprudence; the appellant’s essential complaint was about the way in which this Court had applied it ...

Therefore, it is possible that in some situations providing assistance through counselling or by other means to individuals in serious financial trouble may be considered to be relieving poverty, even if the individuals are not then destitute (Vancouver Society of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women v. ... There is no indication that the Appellant screened these clients and only offered its services to those individuals who would be considered to be “poor” as determined for the recognized charitable purpose of the relief of poverty. ... The Appellant has not established that its services, aimed at the prevention of poverty, would benefit the community in a way that is considered charitable. ...

That the applicant did not show remorse. [11]            Ultimately, the adjudicator found that “the evidence clearly supports the employer’s reasons for imposing discipline and that it considered all mitigating factors. ... He noted that this was one of the key factors considered in imposing the 40-day suspension, as it underlay the ongoing risk of disclosure of taxpayer information. ... Further, he considered whether the information was downloaded and thus disclosed to be irrelevant. ...