Search - considered

It was considered by aboriginal people as one of four sacred medicines and was used as a ceremonial offering by the community Mother Earth Tobacco served ... However, her request, based on that possibility and the apparent unfairness of the impact of this regime, that I read down or reconstruct the regime as imposed by our parliamentary system, cannot be accommodated given the limited jurisdiction of this Court and my ignorance of what answers to the Appellant’s concerns might be given by other stakeholders including government policy makers. [2]   [24]     I have no hesitation, however, in recommending that the policy of this taxing regime be revisited and any necessary amendments be considered. Indeed, if the Appellant’s pleas are as worthy as she makes them out to be, a remission order might even be considered. ...

The Appellant considered that mare to be royally bred but she was not a racing prospect because of a leg problem. ... How can such a person be considered as a "gentleman" or "hobby" farmer as described by the Federal Court of Appeal in Donnelly? ... Although he sustained losses, that reason alone is not sufficient to establish that the Appellant must be considered as a hobby farmer with no reasonable expectation of profit. [18]     In my opinion the Appellant clearly carried on farming as a "sideline business" and, as stated in Moldowan, is entitled to the limited farm losses he claimed in 1991, 1992 and 1993. ...

The appraisal was very expensive, but it was considered to be necessary because the CRA had concerns with their prior valuations ... In Lucenti, questions were considered to be improper if they are a collateral attack and only relevant to credibility. ...   [18]          It remains to be considered whether the Court should step in to disallow the questions on the ground that they are a fishing expedition (Lehigh, para. 35) ...

Dubois identified a questionnaire (Exhibit R-2) that he answered for the Respondent and that corroborates his evidence. [9]            In order to receive the Canada Child Tax Benefit, the Appellant must prove that she was the eligible individual for the period from February 1, 1999 to July 1, 1999 and for the period from December 1, 1999 to June 1, 2000. [10]          Section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act (the " Act ") defines "eligible individual" as follows: "eligible individual" in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant, (c) is resident in Canada or, where the person is the cohabiting spouse of a person who is deemed under subsection 250(1) to be resident in Canada throughout the taxation year that includes that time, was resident in Canada in any preceding taxation year, (d) is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or (b), and (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse is, a Canadian citizen or a person who (i) is a permanent resident (within the meaning assigned by the Immigration Act), (ii) is a visitor in Canada or the holder of a permit in Canada (within the meanings assigned by the Immigration Act) who was resident in Canada throughout the 18 month period preceding that time, or (iii) was determined before that time under the Immigration Act, or regulations made under that Act, to be a Convention refugee, and for the purposes of this definition, (f) where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant's female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing. [11]          Section 6302 of the Income Tax Regulations (the " Regulations "), which appears in Part LXIII of those Regulations, lists a series of factors to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant. ... Factors — For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant: (a) the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant; (b) the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides; (c) the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant; (d) the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant; (e) the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person; (f) the attendance to the hygienic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis; (g) the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and (h) the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides. [12]          Issues of this nature usually arise when parents of qualified dependants separate. ...

He had trouble understanding the importance that the children's relationship with their mother had for them. [11]     Exhibit A-6 is a report prepared by Daniel Charbonneau dated March 29, 2000, stating that the mother had difficulty in her role supervising her children and that the father was potentially violent and occasionally lost control over his drinking. [12]     The relevant portion of the definition of "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act reads as follows: 122.6    Definitions- In this subdivision, "eligible individual" in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a)         resides with the qualified dependant, (b)         is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant,... and for the purposes of this definition, (f)         where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant's female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g)         the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h)         prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing. [13]     Subsection 6301(1) of the Income Tax Regulations (the " Regulations ") reads as follows: Non-application of presumption- (1) For the purposes of paragraph (g) of the definition "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act, the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) of that definition does not apply in the circumstances where (a)         the female parent of the qualified dependant declares in writing to the Minister that the male parent, with whom she resides, is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of each of the qualified dependants who reside with both parents; (b)         the female parent is a qualified dependant of an eligible individual and each of them files a notice with the Minister under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the same qualified dependant; (c)         there is more than one female parent of the qualified dependant who resides with the qualified dependant and each female parent files a notice with the Minister under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the qualified dependant; or (d)         more than one notice is filed with the Minister under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the same qualified dependant who resides with each of the persons filing the notices if such persons live at different locations. [14]     Section 6302 of the Regulations describes the factors applicable to the notion of care and upbringing of a child: Factors- For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant: (a)         the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant; (b)         the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides; (c)         the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant; (d)         the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant; (e)         the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person; (f)         the attendance to the hygenic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis; (g)         the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and (h)         the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides. [15]     Paragraph (f) of the definition of "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act provides that, where the qualified dependant lives with his mother, there is a presumption that the person who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is the mother. [16]     Is that presumption rebuttable? ... Counsel for the respondent referred to the maxim, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, in asserting that, since Parliament had set out four exceptions to the presumption, the failure to state another must be considered intentional. [20]     Judge Rip dismissed the respondent's arguments and held that the presumption under section 122.6 must be rebuttable within the ordinary meaning of the statutory and regulatory provisions. ...

The issue is whether the Appellant is the eligible individual in respect of the period from July 1997 to October 1998. [17]          Section 122.6 of the Act defines "eligible individual" as follows: "eligible individual" in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant, (c) is resident in Canada or, where the person is the cohabiting spouse or common-law partner of a person who is deemed under subsection 250(1) to be resident in Canada throughout the taxation year that includes that time, was resident in Canada in any preceding taxation year, (d) is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or (b), and (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse or common-law partner is, a Canadian citizen or a person who (i) is a permanent resident (within the meaning assigned by the Immigration Act), (ii) is a visitor in Canada or the holder of a permit in Canada (within the meanings assigned by the Immigration Act) who was resident in Canada throughout the 18 month period preceding that time, (iii) was determined before that time under the Immigration Act, or regulations made under that Act, to be a Convention refugee, or (iv) was determined before that time to be a member of a class defined in the Humanitarian Designated Classes Regulations made under the Immigration Act, and, for the purposes of this definition, (f) where a qualified dependant resides with the dependant's female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing; [18]          Section 6302 of the Income Tax Regulations, which appears in Part LXIII, lists a series of factors to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant. ... Factors — For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant:     (a) the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant; (b) the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides; (c) the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant; (d) the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant; (e) the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person; (f) the attendance to the hygienic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis; (g) the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and (h) the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides. [19]          It is clear from the evidence that court orders have existed in respect of both qualified dependants since as early as May 12, 1993. ...

In Curzi, at paragraphs 13 to 20, Noël J. considered the concept of "custody" in relation to the concept of "child of the marriage" as defined in the Divorce Act as follows: 13. ... Some aspects of the definition of the expression "child of the marriage" set out in the Divorce Act evoke a concept similar to the one contemplated by the support obligation set out in the Civil Code: a child may be considered to be under the charge of his or her parents for so long as he or she cannot provide for his or her own needs, regardless of age. 18. ... When a child is emancipated and leaves the custody of the spouse, the problem addressed by Parliament in allowing the deduction of amounts paid for the benefit of the child ceases to exist: from that point on, the former spouse no longer has a duty of care deriving from his or her right of custody, and the support can no longer be considered to be owing or paid on account of that duty. [9]      It is also worth noting a decision rendered by our Court on the issue of the right to custody, particularly in light of the provisions of the Civil code of Québec. ...

Accordingly, there is no doubt that the $1,004.50 amount is insurable; however, we must verify whether this amount confers entitlement to insurable hours, since there were no hours worked during the two weeks of notice. [13]     Section 9.1 of the Employment Insurance Regulations provides: Where a person's earnings are paid on an hourly basis, the person is considered to have worked in insurable employment for the number of hours that the person actually worked and for which the person was remunerated. [14]     According to the aforementioned report on an appeal (Exhibit I-4), that section was interpreted by the Minister as follows: [TRANSLATION]... no insurable hours can be granted... for the period from October 31, 2000, to November 13, 2000, because the worker did not work any hours. ... The Minister also determined that the lump sum payment made to the Appellant at the termination of his employment with the Payor on July 23, 1997, was considered as "insurable earnings", however, there were no insurable hours pursuant to paragraph 9.1 of the Employment Insurance Regulations (the "E.I. ... This lump sum payment is considered an earning but not equal to a number of hours worked. ...

Coleman also indicated he considered simply observing the horses as being very much part of his responsibility. [7]            With respect to the pasture horses, little service is required other than observation and in the winter the provision of feed. [8]            Mr. ... If I accept the Appellant's first argument that there are multiple supplies and that all the supplies other than the feed are simply incidental to the feed, then section 138 can be considered. ... Counsel suggested that the cleaning of the stalls was a direct result of the output from feeding and, therefore, such time should also be considered as part of the feeding process. ...

It must therefore be considered that they were prepared by the appellant or under his immediate guidance. ... She considered that he used at most 37 percent, considering the plans of the house and the fact that he had no employees. ... She considered the interest on the bank loans as a personal expense because the nature of the operations and the site did not require bank loans. ...