Search - considered

(b) a retiring allowance;            ... [9]      Therefore, according to section 9.1 of the Employment Insurance Regulations, a person who is paid on an hourly basis 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. [10]     According to the definition of insurable earnings, they include the total insurable earnings from insurable employment, that is, the earnings that the insured person receives from the employer for this employment, but not including a retiring allowance. ... No. 523 (Q.L.), she claimed that even if an employee is no longer working it does not necessarily follow that there is no longer a contract of service during this period. [12]     I agree with counsel for the Appellant that the pay given to the Appellant cannot be considered a retiring allowance unless the employment relationship was broken. ... In fact, section 9.1 of the Employment Insurance Regulations stipulates that a person paid on an hourly basis 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. ...

Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif   Appearances:   Agent for the Applicant: Marcel Lachance   Counsel for the Respondent: Stéphanie Côté____________________________________________________________________   ORDER             Upon application for an order extending the time within which an appeal from the assessments made pursuant to the Income Tax Act for the 1996 and 1997 taxation years may be instituted;             The application is allowed for the attached reasons; the Court orders that the time within which an appeal may be instituted be extended until the date of this order and that the Notice of Appeal submitted with the application be considered as a valid Notice of Appeal; the Respondent will have 60 days from the date of this order to submit a Reply to the Notice of Appeal.   ...   [10]     This kind of approach is contrary to the spirit of the Act; moreover, it would have a ridiculous effect as the notice or an announcement of the intention to institute an appeal could then be considered an actual Notice of Appeal, at which point it would be futile to provide for the possibility of submitting a Notice of Appeal after the 90-day deadline ...   [19]     The application is allowed and the Court orders that the time within which an appeal may be instituted be extended until the date of this order and that the Notice of Appeal submitted with the application be considered as a valid Notice of Appeal; the Respondent will have 60 days from the date of this order to submit a Reply to the Notice of Appeal.   ...

  [5]      During the years at issue, the Workers all considered themselves as free‑lance professional dance teachers. ... The Workers had to pay for training courses to maintain their standing with dance organizations, while the evidence disclosed that training for teachers who were considered as employees of the appellant was apparently paid for by the latter. ...   [12]      In the present case, it is clear from the evidence that the appellant and the Workers considered the Workers to be involved in an independent contractor relationship. ...

Integration. [22]     Control: Control is always a factor to be considered in determining if the worker is an employee or an independent contractor. ... The Worker could not be considered as a contractor as he did not own a vehicle. ... By this criteria, the Worker should be considered as an employee. [25]     Integration: It was the Payer's business and not that of the Worker. ...

The point at issue was whether the net income of the appellant's de facto spouse must be considered in computing the adjusted income within the meaning of that term in section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act (the " Act "). [2]      By notice of child tax benefit dated July 20, 2000, the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") determined that the amount of the tax benefit to which the appellant was entitled for her daughter Josia for the 1999 base year was $32.33. [3]      In determining that tax benefit, the Minister relied on the facts described in paragraph 5 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal (the "Reply") as follows: [TRANSLATION] (a)         the appellant is the mother of a daughter named Josia, whose date of birth is March 1, 1984; (b)         the appellant and Guy Morrissette have lived together at least since September 1998; (c)         in her notice of objection dated September 11, 2000, the appellant stated that she had a de facto spouse at the end of December 1999; (d)         the net income of the appellant's de facto spouse, Guy Morrissette, totalled $62,328 for the 1999 taxation year; (e)         the net family income for the 1999 taxation year totalled $72,871; (f)          after the net family income was considered in computing the appellant's child tax benefits for the 1999 base year, the Minister determined that the tax benefit for the appellant's daughter Josia was an annual sum of $32.33; [4]      The appellant testified. ... Analysis [10]     The terms "cohabiting spouse" and "adjusted income" are defined as follows in section 122.6 of the Act: "cohabiting spouse" ¾"cohabiting spouse" of an individual at any time means the person who at that time is the individual's spouse and who is not at that time living separate and apart from the individual and, for the purpose of this definition, a person shall not be considered to be living separate and apart from an individual at any time unless they were living separate and apart at that time, because of a breakdown of their marriage, for a period of at least 90 days that includes that time. "adjusted income" ¾"adjusted income" of an individual for a taxation year means the total of all amounts each of which would be the income for the year of the individual or of the person who was the individual's cohabiting spouse at the end of the year if no amount were included in respect of a gain from a disposition of property to which section 79 applies in computing that income. [11]     Subsection 252(4) of the Act provides that words referring to a parent of a taxpayer include the person of the opposite sex who cohabits with the taxpayer in a conjugal relationship and has so cohabited throughout a 12-month period: (4)    In this Act, (a)    words referring to a spouse at any time of a taxpayer include the person of the opposite sex who cohabits at that time with the taxpayer in a conjugal relationship and (i) has so cohabited with the taxpayer throughout a 12-month period ending before that time, or (ii) would be a parent of a child of whom the taxpayer would be a parent, if this Act were read without reference to paragraph 1(e) and subparagraph (2)(a)(iii) and, for the purposes of this paragraph, where at any time the taxpayer and the person cohabit in a conjugal relationship, they shall, at any particular time after that time, be deemed to be cohabiting in a conjugal relationship unless they were not cohabiting at the particular time for a period of at least 90 days that includes the particular time because of a breakdown of their conjugal relationship;          ... [12]     The deemed overpayment, which in other words is the calculation of the Canada Child Tax Benefit, is provided for in subsection 122.61(1) of the Act, which states that adjusted income is considered in calculating the overpayment or the Canada Child Tax Benefit. ...

It reads as follows: For the purposes of this Act, where the expression “controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever,” is used, a corporation shall be considered to be so controlled by another corporation, person or group of persons (in this subsection referred to as the “controller”) at any time where, at that time, the controller has any direct or indirect influence that, if exercised, would result in control in fact of the corporation, except that, where the corporation and the controller are dealing with each other at arm's length and such influence is derived from a franchise, licence, lease, distribution, supply or management agreement or other similar agreement or arrangement, the main purpose of which is to govern the relationship between the corporation and the controller regarding the manner in which a business carried on by the corporation is to be conducted, the corporation shall not be considered to be controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever, by the controller by reason only of such agreement or arrangement. [6]            Thus, what must be decided is control, either de jure control or de facto control. ... It reads: 45(1)        The repeal of an enactment in whole or in part shall not be deemed to be or to involve a declaration that the enactment was previously in force or was considered by Parliament or other body or person by whom the enactment was enacted to have been previously in force. (2)            The amendment of an enactment shall not be deemed to be or to involve a declaration that the law under that enactment was or was considered by Parliament or other body or person by whom the enactment was enacted to have been different from the law as it is under the enactment as amended. (3)            The repeal or amendment of an enactment in whole or in part shall not be deemed to be or to involve any declaration as to the previous state of the law. (4)            A re-enactment, revision, consolidation or amendment of an enactment shall not be deemed to be or to involve an adoption of the construction that has by judicial decision or otherwise been placed on the language used in the enactment or on similar language. [26]          The most extensive discussion of the rule is found in Mountain Park Coals Limited v. ...

As well, I have considered the Minutes of Settlement, and, in particular, paragraphs 4(b) and 4(c). ... With regard to maintenance for the child Chelsea, I have again considered Mr. ... I have also considered that both spouses have an obligation to contribute to Chelsea's maintenance. ...

He referred to several decisions in similar Amway situations where, with I believe one exception, the Amway distributor in question was considered not to have had a reasonable expectation of profit. ... This was not a normal Amway case and Amway distributorships should not necessarily be considered as non-businesses. ... He thus argues that the startup period should be recommenced at the point when the move was made, namely in August of 1993 and that the years 1994 and 1995 can be considered as further reasonable startup years. ...

" [7] ii) Employment Insurance Regulations 9.1 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.... 10.(1) Where a person's earnings are not paid on an hourly basis but the employer provides evidence of the number of hours that the person actually worked in the period of employment and for which the person was remunerated, the person is deemed to have worked that number of hours in insurable employment.... 21. ... The three month period of salary in lieu of notice should be considered as work in insurable employment for the number of hours that the Appellant would normally have worked and for which he would normally have been remunerated. ... This lump sum payment is considered an earning but not equal to a number of hours worked. ...

Although she considered the breeding portion of the operation to be the more important, she did earn income from racing her own horses as well; however, on the whole she did not appear to put much emphasis on the racing side. ... Against this background, he then considered what he described as the common law Moldowan test, which requires a profit or reasonable expectation of profit. In brief, Linden, J.A. considered that this test is not to be made solely in hindsight without examining the business aspects of the investment. ...