Search - considered

[Emphasis added.] [12]            In addition to these factors, the subjective intention of the parties must also be considered. Where one can establish a common intent of the parties with regard to the type of working relationship they wished to establish, this intent must be considered in the Court’s analysis of the foregoing factors. [13]            It is important to bear in mind, however, that the intention of the parties is only relevant to the extent that it is reflected in the facts of the case. ... Hayes could listen in on calls, but there is no evidence that Greenshield could, or would, interfere with the manner in which pitches were made. [25]         The only meetings with Workers consisted of a 5 minute presentation at the start of each shift in which relevant information, such as special sales promotions, were provided to the Workers. [26]         When the evidence is considered as a whole, I find that it is more consistent with Greenshield not having the ability to control how the work was done. ...

At paragraph 38, Withler identifies a non-exhaustive list of contextual factors that can be considered: Without attempting to limit the factors that may be useful in assessing a claim of discrimination, it can be said that where the discriminatory effect is said to be the perpetuation of disadvantage or prejudice, evidence that goes to establishing a claimant’s historical position of disadvantage or to demonstrating existing prejudice against the claimant group, as well as the nature of the interest that is affected, will be considered. … Where the impugned law is part of a larger benefits scheme, as it is here, the ameliorative effect of the law on others and the multiplicity of interests it attempts to balance will also colour the discrimination analysis. [9]              There is no question that Mr. ... Allocation of resources and particular policy goals that the legislature may be seeking to achieve may also be considered. [15]         Mr. ...

Fortier had not thought of this impediment during the month and a half he considered purchasing it. ... The Queen, the Tax Court of Canada stated again that taxpayers have the right to disagree with the Minister in their interpretation of the Act, without this necessarily being considered a misrepresentation. ...   …   18        To conclude that the appellant's conduct was a wilful default or that it constituted a sufficient error to permit the Minister to assess beyond the normal period, would affect any taxpayer's right to contest the merits of an assessment, and would cause the limitation period imposed by Parliament to be essentially theoretical.   26        In the light of the above-noted decisions, it appears that adopting a thoughtfully considered position that contradicts the Minister's position does not in itself mean the taxpayer made a misrepresentation that would allow the Minister to assess outside the normal period ...

  [3]              The offer was rejected by the Crown, without a counter-offer, for these reasons: (1) the Crown was prohibited from making a compromise counter-offer because the issue was “all or nothing,” (2) the Crown considered that its position was legally correct, and (3) Blackburn’s offer was not an offer of settlement as contemplated by the Rules but a request to consent to judgment ... It has also been considered in intellectual property litigation: Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v Maple Leaf Meats Inc., 2002 FCA 417 (Maple Leaf Meats) ...   [21]         In Walker Estate, the Court (Morden A.C.J.O., Doherty and Moldaver JJ.A.) states that “[t]he absence of compromise is to be considered together with the fact that the [defendant] was relying upon a defence of substance ...

Lord Advocate [2] the House of Lords considered the question whether an individual was a "regular minister of a religious denomination" within the meaning of a statute which conferred exemption from compulsory military service on "a man in holy orders or a regular minister of any religious denomination". ... I do not find the bulletin of any assistance in interpreting paragraph 8(1)(c) for it sheds no light on the considerations which led the author of the bulletin to conclude that such officers are considered to be ministers. ... Bonner" J.T.C.C. [1]               There does not appear to be any relationship between the source of income and the deduction sought in this case, but the point was not put in issue and need not be considered further. [2]               [1956] 3 All ER 129 [3]               96 DTC 1744 [4]               Hawkes v. ...

This resulted in a large volume of work for the conduct of the appeal, and that this should all be considered by the taxing officer ...   [16]   Counsel for the Appellant noted that the Respondent had provided no basis for which the number of hours claimed could be considered unreasonable. ...   [17]   In summary, counsel for the Appellant noted that the factors to be considered by the taxing officer under section 154 of the Rules should result in her client being fully indemnified if the test of reasonableness was met, which she believed it was as noted in paragraph 10 above. ...

Ranasinghe Counsel for the Respondent: Gergely Hegedus Donna Tomljanovic   ORDER           Whereas a judgment was rendered on August 13, 2014;             And whereas the parties were to provide written submissions on costs;             And whereas such submissions have been received and considered;             It is hereby ordered that the Appellants are awarded costs of $13,000 plus disbursements of $1,714.50 in accordance with the attached reasons. ... Words found in legislation are not generally considered redundant.. . . [8]              The Respondent argues that novelty, uniqueness, complexity, difficulty or the fact that a large amount of money is involved are not necessarily reasons to depart from the Tariff. ... This variation demonstrates that the amount in issue is simply one factor to be considered among all of the section 147 factors. [19]         Overall, the amount in issue here was relatively low and only favours a percentage that moves slightly, if at all, beyond the Tariff. ...

It is not possible for students to study fast enough to be considered to be studying full time. . . . [8]              The MBA program requires successful completion of 180 credits to graduate, whether attending online or on campus. ... However, it is clear that in Krause, the university characterized the attendance as full‑time and that the key issue before Associate Chief Justice Bowman (as he then was) was whether online attendance could ever be considered full‑time. [17]         Ms.  ... In McGrath, the evidence accepted by Justice McArthur was that the university considered Ms.  ...

Legislative provisions [18]          Concerning the CCTB, section 122.6 of the Act defines the following terms: “eligible individual” in respect of a qualified dependant at any times means a person who at that time a)       resides with the qualified dependant, b)       is the parent of the qualified dependant who (i)     is the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant and who is not a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant, or (ii)     is a shared-custody parent in respect 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 fulfills the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed 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; “qualified dependant” at any time means a person who at that time a)       has not attained the age of 18 years; b)       is not a person in respect of whom an amount was deducted under paragraph (a) of the description of B in subsection 118(1) in computing the tax payable under this Part by the person’s spouse or common-law partner for the base taxation year in relation to the month that includes that time, and c)       is not a person in respect of whom a special allowance under the Children’s Special Allowances Act is payable for the month that includes that time; “shared-custody parent” in respect of a qualified dependant at a time means, where the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) of the definition “eligible individual” does not apply in respect of the qualified dependant, an individual who is one of the two parents of the qualified dependant who a)         are not at that time cohabiting spouses or common-law partners of each other, b)         reside with the qualified dependant on an equal or near equal basis, and c)         primarily fulfil the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant when residing with the qualified dependant, as determined in consideration of prescribed factors. [19]          Section 6302 of the Income Tax Regulations (the “ Regulations ”) lists the prescribed factors for determining whether a parent primarily fulfils the care and upbringing of children: 6302. 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. Analysis [20]          For the purposes of the CCTB, there is no doubt that child M. was a qualified dependant. [21]          The presumption in favour of the mother set forth in paragraph (f) of the definition of “eligible individual” does not apply in this case, as both parents filed a CCTB claim for child M. for the period from July 2015 to June 2017. [22]          For the appellant to be considered an “eligible individual” in relation to child M. at a given time, during the period from July 2015 to June 2017, one of the following conditions must be met: a)      the appellant resides with the dependant; b)     the appellant is the father of the dependant and primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the dependant and is not a shared-custody parent in respect of the dependant; c)      the appellant is a shared-custody parent of child M. [23]          When the parents of the qualified dependant are shared-custody parents, they must share the CCTB. ...

The Minister also considered that in ostensibly donating the corporate shares, the Appellant had no “donative interest”. As well the Minister considered that in “donating” these corporate shares which the Minister considered as having no value, the Appellant had participated in a tax shelter scheme and had not reported prescribed information accordingly, including a tax shelter identification number. [3]               More particularly, in this regard, in the Amended Reply at paragraphs 9(a) to (d) and 9(g) to (s) the Respondent pleaded assumptions made by the Minister, as follows: a)         in 2009, the appellant earned income of $47,201, which was comprised of employment income of $27,378.30, employment insurance benefits of $4,848.00 and taxable capital gains of $14,975; b)         in the ten years prior to the 2009 taxation year, the appellant’s total charitable donations was $0; Congregation of the Sisters of Merciful Jesus (the “Charity”) c)         the Charity is a charitable organization in Hobbema, Albert; d)         the Charity is based in Poland and the nuns are not elders of the Samson Indian band, nor any other Indian band; … Strategic Gifting Group g)         Strategic Gifting Group (“Strategic”) was a sole proprietorship owned by Abraham Herbert Grossman (aka Al Grossman); h)         between October, 2009 and February, 2011, Strategic ran an arrangement that was promoted to allow a participant to claim in his or her tax return, a charitable donation of four to twelve dollars for every dollar that he or she contributed (the “Strategic Scheme”); i)          Strategic and/or its promoters promoted that a participant who was an Ontario resident would receive a return of approximately 46.41%; j)          the Minister did not issue a tax shelter identification number in respect of Strategic; k)         the appellant did not provide a tax shelter identification number with respect to the amounts claimed from as a result of his participation in the Strategic Scheme and he did not file a form T5004; l)          the Strategic Scheme operated as follows: i.   ...