Search - considered

As already said, the only question raised by this appeal is whether or not the amount of $89,206.73 received by Lazar Pinkus under the two agreements of March 2, 1960 must be considered, under Section 111 of the Income Tax Act as it read in 1960, as a gift made to him by his mother, Rose Pinkus. 1 will deal very briefly with the submissions made by counsel at the hearing for, in my opinion, this appeal cannot be disposed of on any of the grounds that they suggested. ... He then went on to state that the two agreements of March 2, 1960 should be considered as being, according to the terminology of the Civil Code of the Province of Quebec, (Articles 1918 et seq.) ...

According to the defendant, the Company also lost some smaller contracts to Beaupré's agency. 12 Under cross-examination, the defendant admitted knowledge of the Income Tax Act to the extent that any moneys payable by way of consultant fees might be considered as deductible for tax purposes whereas any moneys paid for shares in the capital stock of a company, in these circumstances, was clearly a capital expenditure and, therefore, not deductible for taxation purposes. ... In my view, a non-competition clause was not inserted because it was not considered necessary, either by the defendant or by those acting on his behalf. ...

I agree with the Respondent that Exhibits C and D are not admissible and should not be considered in this application because they were not provided to the Minister’s Delegate as part of the appeal record. ... In the alternative and for completeness, I have also found that the decision is reasonable. [29] Having considered the initial costs request and oral submissions of the Respondent at the hearing, and in the circumstances of this case, the Court fixes costs at $500.00 payable by Mr. ...

In the case of the CWLB, her reasons for not working were not considered reasonable or related to a COVID‑19 lockdown. [10] The applicant now seeks judicial review of the Decisions. [11] On February 8, 2023, the Court consolidated the applicant’s two applications for judicial review (T-2476-22, T-2478-22), and Docket No T-2476-22 was designated as the lead case. ... However, in light of my finding that the applicant does not meet the eligibility criterion of a minimum income, I will not examine the other criteria considered in the Decisions, namely, that the applicant was not working for reasons other than COVID-19, and she did not have a 50% reduction in her average weekly income compared to the previous year for reasons related to COVID-19. ...

The reasons for the decision include the second review report provided to the Applicant and the notepad entries made by CRA officers throughout the course of review: Aryan v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 139 [Aryan] at para 22. [13] The Officer considered the Applicant’s submissions, the CRA’s guidelines for determining CRB eligibility, the other officers’ entries on the Applicant’s case, information gathered during his telephone calls with the Applicant, and the Applicant’s relevant financial information including her income statements. ... Absent exceptional circumstances, reviewing courts must not interfere with the decision-maker’s factual findings and cannot reweigh and reassess evidence considered by the decision-maker: Vavilov at para 125. ...

The CRA Notes indicate that during the Second-Level Review, the Officer made three unsuccessful attempts to contact the Applicant to seek additional information. [7] The Officer proceeded with the Second-Level Review and considered the documents that were assessed during the First-Level Decisions; the Applicant’s letter requesting a second review dated July 20, 2023; a copy of the Applicant’s Statement documents provided on July 20, 2023; and, the information found on the CRA’s systems with respect to the Applicant’s income for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 taxation years. [8] On May 1, 2024, the Officer sent to the Applicant two letters regarding the CERB and CRB Second-Level Review. ... The reviewing court must refrain from “reweighing and reassessing the evidence considered by the decision maker” (Vavilov at para 125). ...

It has established a simple, fixed income eligibility threshold of $5,000, contrasting sharply with the complex computations required under statutes such as the Income Tax Act, RSC, 1985, c 1 (5th Supp) or the Excise Tax Act, RSC 1985, c E-15, which are not considered to be benefit-conferring legislation: Werring v R, [1997] 3 CTC 2876 (TCC) at para 8; Canadian Pacific Ltd. at para 25. ... Without explanations, the temporal mismatch cited by the Officer is largely irrelevant to the CERB eligibility period and cannot reasonably support a finding of ineligibility. [28] I further find the Respondent’s reliance on the CRA policy document “Confirming Covid-19 benefits eligibility” which cautions “… amounts in Tax returns or the Notice of Assessment are self-reported and, as such are not considered to be conclusive proof that the mounts reported were actually earned…” [emphasis added] does not cure the Officer’s analytical defect. ...

Therefore, they should not be considered on the application for judicial review: Maltais v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 817 at para 21. ... In its decision, the CRA considered the Applicant’s telephone conversation with the CRA representative. ...

Absent exceptional circumstances, reviewing courts must not interfere with the decision-maker’s factual findings and cannot reweigh and reassess evidence considered by the decision-maker (Vavilov at para 125). ... Once again, this analysis does not demonstrate an undue fixation on the lack of legal status; it was simply one factor considered in assessing the Applicants’ degree of financial establishment in Canada. [22] The Applicants dispute that they had taxes owing, arguing that their most recent Notices of Assessment showed that taxes were owing, but not due to be paid until after they submitted their H&C application. ...

The text of those sections (which, together with other provisions considered in these Reasons, are set out in full in Appendix “A”), will be canvassed later in this decision. ... Ghermezian (and the other Brothers) as trustees, etc. represents an explanation of the basis on which CRA considered him to be in a position to respond to the Request. ... Nader Ghermezian and his family, and CRA considered information and documentation related to possible unknown trusts or similar arrangements to be relevant to that investigation. ...