Search - considered

The most that can be said is that control will no doubt always have to be considered, although it can no longer be regarded as the sole determining factor; and that factors, which may be of importance, are such matters as whether the man performing the services provides his own equipment, whether he hires his own helpers, what degree of financial risk he takes, what degree of responsibility for investment and management he has, and whether and how far he has an opportunity of profiting from sound management in the performance of his task.   ... Naugle could hardly be considered an entrepreneur. Dealing specifically with the factors so frequently enumerated, Mr. ... Justice MacGuigan called it, is that it gives an indication of investment in what may or may not be considered to be a business enterprise ...

Only if the Worker was employed under a contract of service will she qualify for "pensionable employment". [13]     What constitutes a "contract of service" has been considered by the courts many times, often in the context of distinguishing the relationship from a "contract for service". ... However, other factors to consider include whether the worker provides his or her own equipment, whether the worker hires his or her own helpers, the degree of financial risk taken by the worker, the degree of responsibility for investment and management held by the worker, and the worker's opportunity for profit in the performance of his or her tasks [4]. [17]     In Sagaz, Justice Major considered the central question to be determined is "whether the person who has been engaged to perform the services is performing them as a person in business on his own account or is performing them in the capacity of an employee" [5]. [18]     The requirement to take a holistic approach in examining the four tests has been emphasized by the Federal Court of Appeal on past occasions:... we view the tests as being useful subordinates in weighing all of the facts relating to the operations of the Applicant. ... To formulate a decision then, the overall evidence must be considered taking into account those of the tests which may be applicable and giving to all the evidence the weight which the circumstances may dictate. [6] Similarly, Justice Major stated in Sagaz: It bears repeating that the above factors constitute a non-exhaustive list, and there is no set formula as to their application. ...

"Principal purpose" is not a defined term in the Act for the purposes of the definition of "specified investment business" in subsection 125(7), but it is considered to be the main or chief objective for which the business is carried on.... 14. The principal purpose of a corporation's business must be determined annually after all the facts relating to that business carried on by that corporation in that year have been considered and analyzed. Included in this evaluation should be such things as: (a) the purpose for which the business was originally commenced; (b) the history and evolution of its operations, including changes in its mode of operation and purpose of existence; and (c) the manner in which the business is conducted. [17]     As for our Court, it has considered this question on several occasions, including the recent cases of Gascoigne v. ...

The term "benefit" is defined in subsection 146(1) of the Act:   " benefit " includes any amount received out of or under a retirement savings plan other than   (a)        the portion thereof received by a person other than the annuitant that can reasonably be regarded as part of the amount included in computing the income of an annuitant by virtue of subsections 146(8.8) and 146(8.9),   (b)        an amount received by the person with whom the annuitant has the contract or arrangement described in the definition "retirement savings plan" in this subsection as a premium under the plan,   (c)        an amount, or part thereof, received in respect of the income of the trust under the plan for a taxation year for which the trust was not exempt from tax by virtue of paragraph 146(4)(c), and   (c.1)     a tax‑paid amount described in paragraph (b) of the definition "tax‑paid amount" in this subsection that relates to interest or another amount included in computing income otherwise than because of this section   and without restricting the generality of the foregoing includes any amount paid to an annuitant under the plan   (d)        in accordance with the terms of the plan,   (e)        resulting from an amendment or modification of the plan, or   (f)        resulting from the termination of the plan;   [5]      Counsel for the appellant submits that the $84,761.32 remitted by La Laurentienne to the Minister must not be considered RRSP income in the appellant's hands because the RRSP benefit resulted from an annuity contract managed by a trust company and is therefore exempt from seizure. ... Consequently, the payment, by a third party, of a taxypayer's tax liability out of his RRSP, is equivalent to the payment of a benefit to the appellant, which means that the appellant can be considered to have been paid a benefit indirectly and must include that amount in computing his income ...     [17]     Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the assessment is referred back to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment on the basis that the payment made by La Laurentienne is not to be considered income in the appellant's hands.   ...

On the contrary, she has shown considerable flexibility and maturity by respecting her daughter's decision to maintain a presence with her father, who is not very reliable and is somewhat irresponsible. [9]      Subsection 122(6) of the Act reads 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, (d) is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or 149(1)(b), and (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse or common-law partner is, a Canadian citizen... and for the purpose 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 122.6 eligible individual (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing. [10]     Section 6302 of the Income Tax Regulations (" Regulations "), which is in Part LXIII of the Regulations, contains a list 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. [11]     The evidence showed that the minor child, Laurie, resided as much with the appellant as with her father. ...

In reviewing the list, two themes become evident as to what type of foods are not to be considered basic groceries: snacks or junk food, including anything that most people would find not particularly healthy; and foods intended to be eaten immediately after opening or removing the packaging.... [11]     Regarding the matter of statutory interpretation, counsel also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. ... Therefore, it comes under the exception to zero-rating unless it can be considered a milk-based beverage. ... It may thus appear that supplies of the beverages produced by the appellant should be considered zero-rated supplies by virtue of subparagraph 1(n)(iii). ...

In 1992, the appellant appears to have fished during the period in issue, but he was unable to prove that his catches were sold to buyers who could be considered as his employers. ... He is therefore no longer considered a self-employed worker under the Fishermen's Regulations provided for by the Act ... Can the appellant be considered a self-employed worker in the circumstances?   ...

With respect to the office expenses, Shah testified that the Appellant had claimed the total cost of "business clothing" as well as haircuts, dry-cleaning, laundry, physiotherapy, unreceipted equipment, and other personal expenditures. [6] These were all considered to be personal expenses and, therefore, not deductible and were disallowed by the Minister. ... There is no basis upon which her "outfits" could be considered as a "uniform". ... The balance was properly disallowed as personal travel since driving between home and her place of employment or between home and the movie theatres she attended with her husband for "professional training" is a personal cost, no part of which can even remotely be considered as deductible. [16]     The Appellant also raised an issue (not pleaded) with respect to the amount of $2,428 which could have been claimed as a capital cost allowance in the taxation years in issue but which had been overlooked by her accountant. ...

The workers considered her as a supervisor.   [21]     Joy Watson said she worked night shifts and was also on call if needed, as her schedule was flexible. ...   [31]     In determining whether the parties have established an employer-employee relationship, the total relationship of the parties must be considered. ...   [40]     An employee receiving a regular salary on an hourly basis cannot be considered as an independent worker. ...

., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 983, 274 N.R. 366, although the issue being vicarious liability, considered the question of whether the parties had entered into a contract for services or a contract of service. ...   [12]     The questions of control, ownership of tools, chance of profit and risk of loss must be firstly considered. ... These items cannot be considered as an entrepreneurial loss. The rates for delivery were pre-set by the Payor. ...