Search - considered

It also considered that if the $22,000 shareholder loan to Mr. Kinney was repaid to the company, the funds could be applied to reduce the GST liability. Finally, the Respondent considered the history of late GST return filings and the history of payments including the unilateral withholding of agreed-upon payments. These factors were considered to show failure to exercise reasonable care and diligence toward the Applicant's payment responsibilities. ...

The Website material and the Declaration of Taxpayer Rights were served and will be considered because they were mentioned. Evidence cannot be considered under Rule 419(1)(a) motion and the extra letters were not being exhibited to an affidavit and are not even evidence.      ... ,THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF REVENUE, TAXATION and MORLEY CERESNE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SCARBOROUGH DISTRICT OFFICE CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO, UNDER THE PROVISION OF RULE 324. ...

As will be seen below, it is to be set aside only because the materials submitted by the Applicant in support of the Rule 51 motion addressed issues that were not considered by Prothonotary Lafrenière in his order ...   [8]                It is now apparent that what is to be considered as grounds for relief under sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, is not the issuance of the search and seizure warrants in and of themselves. ...   [9]                Firstly, judicial review of CRA’s practice, if indeed it is common practice, to proceed under section 487 of the Criminal Code is in line with an expanding notion of what is to be considered as a decision or order and a matter to be reviewed under sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act. ...

As will be seen below, it is to be set aside only because the materials submitted by the Applicants in support of the Rule 51 motion addressed issues that were not considered by Prothonotary Lafrenière in his order ...   [8]                It is now apparent that what is to be considered as grounds for relief under sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, is not the issuance of the search and seizure warrants in and of themselves. ...   [9]                Firstly, judicial review of CRA’s practice, if indeed it is common practice, to proceed under section 487 of the Criminal Code is in line with an expanding notion of what is to be considered as a decision or order and a matter to be reviewed under sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act. ...

As will be seen below, it is to be set aside only because the materials submitted by the Applicant in support of the Rule 51 motion addressed issues that were not considered by Prothonotary Lafrenière in his order ...   [8]                It is now apparent that what is to be considered as grounds for relief under sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, is not the issuance of the search and seizure warrants in and of themselves. ...   [9]                Firstly, judicial review of CRA’s practice, if indeed it is common practice, to proceed under section 487 of the Criminal Code is in line with an expanding notion of what is to be considered as a decision or order and a matter to be reviewed under sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act. ...

The officer reviewed all of the information on the file, conducted further research into the Applicant’s financial circumstances and considered the Applicant’s health issues. ... [15]            The Applicant argues that her health condition was not considered in the decision by the Minister. ... I am satisfied that Minister properly considered the evidence before him and that the decision was not based on considerations irrelevant or extraneous to the statutory purpose. ...

    [11]             The Minister has issued guidelines setting out a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in exercising his discretion to waive penalties and interest, including: (1) extraordinary circumstances, (2) actions of the CRA; and (3) inability to pay or financial hardship ...   [12]            In considering these factors, it is important to note that any applicant is responsible to file his or her return on time, and that any errors attributable to third parties are not considered extraordinary circumstances (Babin v Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2005 FC 972 at paras 19-20; Quastel v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2011 FC 143; Boonstra v Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FC 1196 at paras 17, 22) ... CRA considered the relevant facts, and acted reasonably. Therefore this application is dismissed ...

If the affidavit truly contained no more than the written statement required to perfect the appeal, and the RAD considered the appeal, the admissibility or inadmissibility of the affidavit had no bearing on the RAD decision. [14]   The PA submitted a further affidavit dated February 24, 2019 in support of this application for judicial review. ... As well, the RAD failed to apply the objective documentary evidence to the Applicants’ specific situation. [21]   The RAD reasonably considered the socio-economic and cultural problems that the Applicants may face in relocating to Port Harcourt. The expense, serious problems of employment and ethnic realties were all considered. ...

The respondent in the pleadings submitted that:... immediately before the death of the deceased, the term insurance policy on his life, which was owned by Mastronardi Produce Ltd, had a value of $500,000.00, and that accordingly such value is to be considered in the determination of the fair market value of the shares in Mastronardi Produce Lid which the deceased was deemed to have disposed of pursuant to subsection 70(5) of the Income Tax Act. ... In my view, therefore, in this case, both such valuations must be considered as having taken place at some other time rather than at the instant of death of the deceased and no premise of imminence of death of the deceased should form any part of such valuations. ... On the contrary, the finding is that no value of this term insurance policy is to be considered in the determination of the fair market value of these shares. ...

Having reviewed the CRA’s reasons, the evidence on the record, and the applicable law, I am not satisfied that the CRA’s Decisions can be considered unreasonable. ... Furthermore, in an application for judicial review, this Court must refrain from reweighing and reassessing the evidence considered by the decision maker (Vavilov at para 125; Clark v Air Line Pilots Association, 2022 FCA 217 at para 9). ... The applicant is asking the Court to reassess the evidence considered by the Officer, which a reviewing court must refrain from doing, absent exceptional circumstances (Vavilov at para 125). [21] With respect to the applicant’s income adjustment after the first ineligibility decisions, the respondent submits that the applicant could not make herself eligible for the CRB and the CWLB simply by going back and removing expenses to increase her income (Laplante v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1450 at para 19 [Laplante]). ...