Search - considered

-Notwithstanding paragraph 20(1)(c), in computing the taxpayer's income for a taxation year from a business or property, no deduction shall be made in respect of any amount paid or payable by the taxpayer in the year and after 1971 as, on account or in lieu of payment of, or in satisfaction of,                   (a) interest on borrowed money used to acquire land, or on an amount payable by him for land, or                   (b) property taxes (not including income or profits taxes or taxes computed by reference to the transfer of property) paid or payable by him in respect of land to a province or a Canadian municipality,               if, having regard to all the circumstances, including the cost to the taxpayer of the land in relation to his gross revenue, if any, therefrom for that or any previous year, the land cannot reasonably be considered to have been, in that year,                   (c) used in, or held in the course of, a business carried on in the year by the taxpayer, or                   (d) [Repealed.]                   ... In other words, generally accepted accounting principles are to be considered, but, at the end, the Court must determine the deductibility of a disbursement and therefore the profit under subsection 9(1). ... However, there is no ambiguity if subsection 18(2) is considered for what it is, namely a limitation provision and not a provision opening a further deductibility not contemplated under subsections 9(1) and 18(1). ...

Since the losses were not considered to have arisen through the carrying on of a farming operation as a business with a reasonable expectation of profit, they were disallowed.      ... The following factors will be considered when determining whether or not the Department will cancel or waive interest or penalties:               (a) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has a history of compliance with tax obligations;               (b) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has knowingly allowed a balance to exist upon which arrears interest has accrued;               (c) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has exercised a reasonable amount of care and has not been negligent or careless in conducting their affairs under the self-assessment system;               (d) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has acted quickly to remedy any delay or omission.               ... She must be considered, therefore, to have made every reasonable effort to ensure that she was in compliance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act.      ...

(3)                    Should any of the constitutional issues raised by the applicant be considered by this Court?   ...   [23]            The obtaining of a licence is generally considered as a privilege and is accompanied by conditions. ...   [32]            Lastly, the constitutional issues raised by the applicant lack proper factual foundation and will therefore not be addressed or considered by this Court (Worthington) ...

The court should not compel answers to questions which, although they might be considered relevant, are not at all likely to advance in any way the questioning party’s legal position: Canex Placer Ltd. v. ... Gardner’s examination, which took place from June 10 to 12, 2009, after having considered that letter and the oral submissions from the parties in that regard, the Court does not intend to reduce the number of such people with respect to Mr.  ... Gardner dated August 13, 2009, which indicates that a considerable number of hours would be required to find the information sought by the questions asked by Eurocopter. [22]            Given the length of the Table Regarding the Plaintiff’s Motion, it is deemed to be part of the reasons for order and order but will be sent under separate cover by the clerk to the counsel for the parties by confidential email. [23]            As for the costs in Eurocopter’s motion, after having reviewed the written and oral submissions from the parties on the topic, and after having considered rules 400(3)(a), (g) and (i), and 400(4), I am of the view that Eurocopter is to be granted its costs in its motion, in accordance with the middle of column III of Tariff B.   ...

  [19]            The Applicant had also argued that the Delegate fettered his discretion because the 1997 penalty relief was considered a “one time” relief. The gravamen of this submission is that this present request for relief was not considered on its merits because the Delegate viewed the “one time” relief as foreclosing consideration of the current request ... Where circumstances beyond a taxpayer's control, actions of the CRA, or inability to pay or financial hardship has prevented the taxpayer from complying with the Act, the following factors will be considered when determining whether or not the CRA will cancel or waive penalties and interest:     (a) whether or not the taxpayer has a history of compliance with tax obligations;   (b) whether or not the taxpayer has knowingly allowed a balance to exist on which arrears interest has accrued;     (c) whether or not the taxpayer has exercised a reasonable amount of care and has not been negligent or careless in conducting their affairs under the self-assessment system; and   (d) whether or not the taxpayer has acted quickly to remedy any delay or omission ...

Justice Mahoney considered an          ex parte application in writing of the Crown to renew a writ of seizure pursuant to former Rule 2006 of the Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, which provided as follows:   Rule 2006. (1) For the purpose of execution, a writ of execution is valid in the first instance for five years beginning with the date of issue ...   [16]            Beyond the matter of expediency and cost-efficiency, there are compelling reasons to allow applications pursuant to Rule 437(2) to be considered on an ex parte basis ... Lafrenière” Prothonotary   FEDERAL COURT   SOLICITORS OF RECORD     DOCKET:                                                       IT A-8283-05   STYLE OF CAUSE:                                       ITA v ALLEN ZIEFFLE   MOTIONS IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, PURSUANT TO RULE 369     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER:  LAFRENIÈRE P.     ...

I also allowed the motion to set aside to be decided on the basis of additional written submissions that I considered before issuing the following order dismissing the motion to set aside with costs ... [11]            With regard to the first criterion, having considered the parties’ written submissions and the evidence on file, I am of the opinion that the Defendants did not provide a “reasonable explanation” or “satisfactory excuse” for their failure to file a statement of defence. ... To determine whether there is confusion, all circumstances in the case must be considered, including: (a)        the inherent distinctiveness of the trade-marks or trade-names and the extent to which they have become known; (b)        the length of time the trade-marks or trade-names have been in use; (c)        the nature of the goods, services or business; (d)        the nature of the trade; and (e)        the degree of resemblance (SEI, supra, at paragraph 17) ...

A series of questions are then considered by the Court, such as those articulated by Rothstein J in Apotex Inc v Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 265 to arrive at a determination as to whether the invention as claimed was obvious or not ... The meaning and importance of that art are matters to be considered by expert witnesses. ... Ultimately, it boils down to a consideration of simple fairness, common sense and the interest that the courts have that justice be done. [11]            On all the factors considered by Bowman, TCJ- timeliness, extent to which the amendments would delay a trial, the extent to which a position taken by the party seeking the amendment would require the other party to change its position- the Plaintiffs have, as I have set out above, satisfied me that no amendment should be made. ...

Analysis [10]            The applicant raises two main arguments to establish that the Pension Centre erred in concluding that she and Environment Canada did not have an employer-employee relationship during the relevant period. [11]            First, the Pension Centre reached a different conclusion from the one reached by the CRA, which means that the applicant was assessed as if she had been a government employee rather than a freelance worker, but was not considered to be an employee for the purpose of accumulating pensionable service. ... Under article 1426 of the CCQ, the interpretation which has already been given to the contract by the parties must be taken into account, and, from the outset, the Pension Centre should have considered the CRA’s conclusion that there was an employer-employee relationship during the period under review. ... Section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act provides as follows: 8.1  Both the common law and the civil law are equally authoritative and recognized sources of the law of property and civil rights in Canada and, unless otherwise provided by law, if in interpreting an enactment it is necessary to refer to a province’s rules, principles or concepts forming part of the law of property and civil rights, reference must be made to the rules, principles and concepts in force in the province at the time the enactment is being applied. 8.1  Le droit civil et la common law font pareillement autorité et sont tous deux sources de droit en matière de propriété et de droits civils au Canada et, s’il est nécessaire de recourir à des règles, principes ou notions appartenant au domaine de la propriété et des droits civils en vue d’assurer l’application d’un texte dans une province, il faut, sauf règle de droit s’y opposant, avoir recours aux règles, principes et notions en vigueur dans cette province au moment de l’application du texte. [17]            The importance given by the Pension Centre to the common law criteria is clear when it notes that [translation] “the application of a common law criterion to the impugned employment period is a precondition that has to be satisfied for the employment period to be considered as pensionable service”. ...

The consequences of removal in those circumstances cannot be made good by readmitting the person to the country following the successful conclusion of their pending application [...]. [12]   In Lewis, the Federal Court of Appeal considered the extent to which the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Kanthasamy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 [Kanthasamy] might have changed the nature of the assessment that an enforcement officer is required to conduct when considering the best interests of a child whose parent seeks to defer their own removal under section 48 of the IRPA. ... Whether the short-term or long-term BIOC is being considered, it will always be contextual and there will always be a multitude of factors. ... The RPD Decision [18]   The Officer found “that most of the issues submitted within the deferral request were already considered in the RPD decision.” ...