Search - considered

T.H. testified he considered this a clerical error and decided the easiest way to remedy it was to have the directors of 115 pass a resolution acknowledging the initial intent of the parties and issuing share certificates totalling 99 common shares of 115 to each of the Appellant and D.K. to correct the error without further consideration to be paid for them. ... The language is sufficiently broad in scope so as to permit any evidence to be considered that could rebut the presumption that the corporate records stand as proof of the facts in them. ... In my opinion, these cases clearly demonstrate that the existence of a share certificate is not conclusive proof of the existence or veracity of the certificate in the presence of evidence to the contrary and that evidence in favour of the issuance of shares is to be considered when no share certificates exist to substantiate the number of shares being claimed ...

  [6]               It was his evidence that the Department considered the chipping of felled trees at the harvest site to be part of the logging operation as it was the collection of a primary forest product ... It is my opinion that one must bear in mind the facts and circumstances that were considered when the ITC was first introduced into the Act ... The Queen [1], Justice MacGuigan referred to Hansard to ascertain the conditions considered by Parliament in bringing the Investment Tax Credit into effect. ...

  [27]          When reviewed in their entirety, I believe the Appellant’s activities can be considered a business. ... However, neither Des Chênes nor Calgary (City) considered section 10.   [37]          The Appellant’s primary argument is based upon its submissions that the grant it received from the EPF is consideration for the supply of the Boat. ... Using the same narrow interpretation which Justice Woods applied, only the supply of the Boat must be considered while the Appellant’s other taxable supplies will not. ...

  [39]         In HMQ v Vancouver Art Metal Works Limited, [1993] 2 FC 179, 93 DTC 5516 (FCA), Justice Letourneau in an unanimous decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, listed several factors to be considered in determining if a person is engaged in the business of trading. ... A person trading within his RRSP cannot be considered to be operating a business. ... I will explain further later in my reasons why trading within an RRSP cannot be considered a business ...

At paragraph 11, one reads:   Whether or not a loan made by a corporation to an individual is considered to have been received by that individual in his or her capacity as an employee or as a shareholder involves a finding of fact in each particular case. When a public corporation makes a loan to a shareholder on the same terms and conditions as to other employees who are not shareholders, the loan is normally considered to be a loan received by virtue of that individual's office or employment rather than his or her shareholdings. ... As indicated earlier, for the purposes of the reasonableness test, whether such a loan is made to the person qua employee or qua shareholder can be determined by comparison with loans made to employees in other businesses of the same kind as the business being considered (here Mastco) ...

The appellant submitted that statements of account that were considered receivables by the respondent were, in substance, statements of interim accounts and represented work in progress. ... If I refer to the two judgments cited by counsel for the appellant, it appears to me that in the Ontario law an interim bill is enforceable except that it is not considered final for the purposes of taxation and for the purposes of calculating the limitation period under section 10 of the Solicitors Act. ... Justice Craig in a matter of taxation: It is my opinion that in the circumstances here present where the solicitors performed services for the client in relation to the same matter over a long period of time, all of the bills must be considered as interim for the purpose of taxation. [6] I refer to the decision of Master Davidson in Re Lipsett and Bliss et al., 15 O.R. (2d) 35. ...

,or   (v) the use in Canada, in relation to activities engaged in by the person, of a motor vehicle,   (b) an amount in respect of the allowance is deductible in computing the income of the person for a taxation year of the person for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, or would have been so deductible if the person were a taxpayer under that Act and the activity were a business,   (c) in the case of an allowance to which subparagraph 6(1)(b)(v), (vi), (vii) or (vii.1) of that Act would apply   (i) if the allowance were a reasonable allowance for the purposes of that subparagraph, and   (ii) where the person is a partnership and the allowance is paid to a member of the partnership, if the member were an employee of the partnership, or, where the person is a charity or a public institution and the allowance is paid to a volunteer, if the volunteer were an employee of the charity or institution,   the person considered, at the time the allowance was paid, that the allowance would be a reasonable allowance for those purposes and it is reasonable for the person to have considered, at that time, that the allowance would be a reasonable allowance for those purposes,   the following rules apply:   (d) the person is deemed to have received a supply of the property or service,   (e) any consumption or use of the property or service by the employee, member or volunteer is deemed to be consumption or use by the person and not by the employee, member or volunteer, and   (f) the person is deemed to have paid, at the time the allowance is paid, tax in respect of the supply equal to the amount determined by the formula A × (B/C) where   A is the amount of the allowance,   B is (i) the total of the rate set out in subsection 165(1) and the tax rate for a participating province if   (A)     all or substantially all of the supplies for which the allowance is paid were made in participating provinces, or   (B)      the allowance is paid for the use of the motor vehicle in participating provinces, and   ii) in any other case, the rate set out in subsection 165(1), and   C is the total of 100% and the percentage determined for B.   ...        [12]         The Midland Hutterian Brethren decision was not considered by the Federal Court of Appeal in ExxonMobil. ...   [15]         Although not relying on the Midland Hutterian Brethren decision, counsel for the Respondent argued that whether applying the “functional connection” test or the ExxonMobil test, the outcome would be the same: the purely discretionary nature of the Yukon Flights rendered their supply “too remote” from the Appellant’s activities to be considered anything other than for its employees’ “exclusive” personal use. ...

Since the risk that the Forward Contracts were intended to hedge no longer existed, the Contracts ceased to be hedges and the profit on the closeout of the Contracts could not be considered to relate to the income generated from the business of producing and processing gold from the Doyon Mine. [27]         In support of its position that the Forward Contracts ceased to be hedges prior to being closed out, the Respondent relies on the expert accounting evidence given at the hearing by Ms. ... O’Malley also stated that, according to GAAP, where a hedging relationship ceases to exist, the profit is considered to be attributable to speculative activity. The Respondent maintains, therefore, that the profits earned on the Forward Contracts was income from speculative activities and, as such income is not within the scope of gross resource profits, it cannot be taken into account in computing the resource allowance. [31]         The Respondent’s final argument is that, as stand-alone transactions, the Forward Contracts cannot be considered to be related to the Appellant’s production and processing of gold from the Doyon Mine. ...

(h)     prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing;   [7]              Paragraph (b) of section 122.6 was replaced by S.C. 2010, c. 25, subsection 24(2) applicable to overpayments that are deemed to arise after June 2011. ...   [8]              The prescribed factors referred to in paragraph (h), to be considered in determining which parent meets the qualification in paragraph (b) are set out in Regulation 6302 as follows:   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 ...   [31]         Considering the evidence submitted by both parties and the factors to be considered under Regulation 6302, I came to the conclusion that the appellant never gave up her responsibility as the primary caregiver to her son even when he lived under his father’s roof on a part-time basis ...

  [39]          Generally considered, this factor pointed more to an employer/employee relationship than to an independent contractor relationship.   ...   [46]          Considered as a whole, this factor appears to me to be neutral.   ... The Appellant argued in her pleadings that the integration factor shall be considered from the point of view of the worker and not from the point of view of the employer. ...