Search - considered

RECOGNIZING that a stay is an injunction, an exceptional discretionary remedy for which an applicant must have “clean hands” to have the application considered by the Court. ... THE COURT ORDERS that, for all these reasons, the applicant’s application not be considered and that the motion be dismissed. ...

I cannot accept or understand, under the present circumstances, the allegation made by debtor’s counsel that the Quebec Minister of Revenue is to be considered the agent of his federal counterpart and that, therefore, a notice of objection sent to the Quebec Minister of Revenue is to be considered one filed with the Minister of National Revenue. ...

However, in the absence of any proof that the effect of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the validity of subsection 231(4) of the Income Tax Act was considered and dealt with in that judgment, this Court is free to deal with it and applicant brought the present motion with reasonable promptness after such judgment. ... That judgment also considered the possibility of invoking section 1 of the Charter to find that subsection 231(4) is “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. ... This was considered in the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench by Noble, J in Re Weigel and The Queen, 7 CCC (3d) 82, under section 443 was inadequate so the warrant was quashed, the search and seizure being found unreasonable and in contravention of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ...

The RPD concluded that, given the Applicant’s failure to disclose other documents he did have, that assertion was neither reliable nor trustworthy. [14]   The RPD briefly considered the legal opinion of the second lawyer, Kamar Ahmed, but afforded it little weight as well, because he did not indicate his expertise or knowledge of matters concerning acquiring citizenship in India. It also considered letters discussing unsuccessful passport applications by other Tibetans. ... The RPD clearly considered, based on its adverse credibility finding, that the Applicant may be in possession of other government issued documents, which he had not disclosed, and upon which he could rely to obtain a passport. [20]   While the RPD does not expressly refer to Tretsetang FCA, I read its analysis as applying the test prescribed by in the Federal Court of Appeal in that case. ...

The CRA considered the Invoices and engaged in numerous discussions with the Applicant regarding the request for supplementary documents as part of the verification of the application. [17] The Respondent relies on the affidavit of Mr. ... The Respondent argues that the Liske Affidavit establishes the CRA’s thorough chain of reasoning and supports its argument that the CRA carefully considered the Invoices and provided the Applicant an opportunity to respond to its continuing concerns regarding his alleged income in January-February 2020. [18] Mr. ... To attempt to do so would trivialize the Charter and inevitably result in ill-considered opinions. ...

In that case, the statute being considered was the British Columbia Toll Highways and Bridges Authority Act. ... However, in that statute the company was given additional powers not present in the statute here being considered. ... To me, this is further evidence of the parliamentary intention that these employees, on the state of the present law, must be considered as servants of the Crown. ...

He submits that the factors identified in Information Circular Number IC07-1 (the “Guidelines”) were considered, as required, in reaching this decision to deny waiver of interest and penalties. ... The Minister may grant relief from the application of penalty and interest where the following types of situations exist and justify a taxpayer’s inability to satisfy a tax obligation or requirement at issue:   (a) extraordinary circumstances   (b) actions of the CRA   (c) inability to pay or financial hardship       [9]                Paragraph 25 identifies circumstances that may be considered to be extraordinary, as follows: 25. ... Taxpayers are generally considered to be responsible for errors made by third parties acting on their behalf for income tax matters. ...

As stated in my reasons given from the Bench, the Crown cannot succeed since the very arguments tendered in support of its position have already been considered and rejected by the Federal Court of Appeal in Erasmus v. ... Consideration and determination of claimed rights and obligations of Treaty Indians have been canvassed, considered and adjudicated in numerous cases inferentially involving determination for declarations of rights and privileges involved. ... The Court considered the three part test to be applied in the matter of declaratory judgments as established by the House of Lords in Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank v. ...

In considering whether granting an extension of time is in the interests of justice, the principal factors to be considered are whether the moving party has demonstrated: (i) a reasonable explanation for the delay; (ii) a continuing intention to pursue his or her application; (iii) that the application has some merit; and (iv) that no prejudice to the respondent arises from the delay. [12] However, I agree with the Respondent that the overriding consideration is that the interests of justice be served [Canada (Attorney General) v. ... I also do not find the prejudice that the Respondent argues for to be persuasive given the facts here. [17] The real question is whether the application may have merit – and the issue of procedural fairness resounds as having some merit that should be properly considered in a judicial review. [18] The CRA provides a two-tier administrative review process of requests. ... A second request for review can also be made, in writing, if it is believed that the CRA did not properly exercise its discretion in considering the first request for review. [19] The second review request requires: The reasons for disagreement with the CRA’s decision, e.g., not all information was considered, certain facts or details were missing or misinterpreted or not considered in their proper context; and Any relevant new documents, new facts, or correspondence. [20] Based on the information before me, it does not appear that a second level review was conducted in this case, though the CRA informed the Applicant of such. ...

While there are recognized exceptions to this rule, as the Applicant has not argued nor have I found that the New Evidence relates to any of the recognized exceptions, the New Evidence cannot be considered. ... The Second Reviewer properly considered the definition of “eligible income” as defined under section 3 of the CRB Act, which excludes “rental, investment, social assistance, CERB, workers comp or RRSP.” The Second Reviewer considered and rejected the Applicant’s attempt to rely on his net income, noting that while the Applicant’s Notices of Assessment for 2019 and 2020 showed more than $5,000 in total income, the amount of eligible income in each of those years was less than $5,000. ...