Search - considered

Then he said, "farming is my life and always will be". [15]          The Appellant also placed into evidence Exhibit R-1 which contained some of the financial information above referred to and also an outline of the history and nature of the farming operation and how he considered it to constitute a business. ... He expected that his children would take up farming and even looked to the day when his grandchildren might follow in his footsteps and the footsteps of his children. [26]          There can be no doubt that the Appellant in this case considered himself to be a full-time farmer, did not consider farming to be a sideline business for him, a hobby or anything but a full-time business which entitled him to claim full farming losses and which would not restrict him to losses available to a part-time farmer under subsection 31(1) of the Act. ... Further, he was required to introduce evidence which show that that amount would have been considered substantial in comparison to his other income. [37]          In Donnelly, supra, Mr. ...

The activities associated with the negotiations for the purchase of Location's shares and with the provision of security for the benefit of Location by its shareholders cannot be considered normal activities of an employee. [39]          The activity that could be considered characteristic of an employee is that relating to Location's purchase of six cars. ... On the other hand, the facts relating to that point are not set out in the Reply to the Notice of Appeal and it might be assumed that if they are not stated there, the Minister did not take them into account. [42]          In my view, even if all the new facts are considered and the mistaken facts taken into account by the Minister are disregarded, the Minister's decision still seems to me to be justifiable. It may be considered justifiable on the basis that Mr. Vigneault's employment would not have lasted until January 1999 if he had not been related to Location. [43]          When Mr. ...

Where contracts are completed during one fiscal period, all the income arising out of the contract is considered to be earned in that fiscal period. ... Revenue, and hence profit, are only recognized by the process I have described, at the end of each period. [11]          It is inherent in the percentage completion method of accounting that the progress billings issued during any period may exceed the sum of the costs incurred and the profit considered to have been earned during the same period. ... I find nothing in Professor Eckel's evidence to support the view that the unearned amounts which remain unpaid at the end of the period should be considered advances. ...

He considered himself to have been hired as a salesman. He had answered an advertisement in a newspaper, attended at a Bartel office and had spoken to Frank Reindl. ... He had been aware of a Code of Ethics- Exhibit I-1- that had been presented to him and he signed an acknowledgement of receipt. [5] David Siradze testified he lives in North Vancouver, British Columbia and in March, 1998 was working for Bartel under circumstances in which he considered himself to be an independent contractor. ... 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 be taken, 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. ...

It is considered that the amount withheld (i.e., the 40% of the billing for the services rendered by the associate) are for services provided by your established dental practice, i.e., administration, support staff, premises and facilities. Accordingly, it is considered that this amount was properly subject to the GST as consideration for a taxable supply and is not eligible for rebate. ... " [16] In the event that I am incorrect in finding that Buchanan was an employee of Battista and that- for other reasons- the money remitted, as GST, can somehow be considered to have been the property of Buchanan, I would still permit the appellant to receive the rebate, as claimed. ...

The Queen, 2003 DTC 221, Judge Archambault of this Court ruled that when the Deputy Minister acts as “assessor”, the Deputy Minister shall not be considered as a third person for the purposes of article 1452 of the C.C.Q. ... However, when the Deputy Minister acts as “collector”, he shall be considered as a third person under article 1452 of the C.C.Q. ...   [29]         However, and despite my opinion, the case law is such that, in this case, the respondent must be considered as a third person, who, acting as a collector, may avail herself of the apparent deeds, that is to say, Exhibits A‑1, A‑2 and A‑3. ...

  [19]         These factors ought to be considered in combination rather than in isolation. ... The intention of the parties is a significant and material guideline or criteria to be considered along with all the other considerations. ... He considered himself to be an employee after that date based on an agreement that he had struck with Mr.  ...

File History [4]               The Worker requested a ruling on the status of her employment with the appellant for the Period. [5]               By letters dated July 9, 2015, the CPP/EI Rulings Officer notified the appellant and the Worker that it had been determined that the Worker was engaged in insurable and pensionable employment with the appellant as she was employed under a contract of service (the “Ruling”). [6]               By letter dated August 13, 2015, the appellant appealed the Ruling to the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) and by letter dated December 16, 2015, the Minister informed the appellant and the Worker that the Ruling had been confirmed. [7]               On July 17, 2015, the Worker filed a claim with the Ministry of Labour of the Province of Ontario alleging that she performed work as an “employee” of the appellant, rather than as an independent contractor from or around September 6, 2014 to May 3, 2015 and that the appellant was in violation of: (i) unpaid wages of $3,263.40; (ii) public holiday pay of $388.80; (iii) vacation pay of $1,083.08; (iv) termination pay of $972; (v) deductions from wages for rent (3 months); and (vi) wage statements not provided and ESA poster not provided/posted. [8]               After reviewing the usual “Four-fold test” used to determine whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor, that is (i) the control; (ii) the ownership of tools; and (iii) the chance of profit and; (iv) the risk of loss, the Employment Standards Officer in charge of the file concluded that the Worker would be considered an “employee” for the purposes of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 of Ontario. ... The appellant considered the Worker to be self-employed while the Worker considered herself to be an employee. ... The Worker did not have any capital expenditures to make and the only expense appears to be the cost of purchasing music sheets. [60]          The facts relating to the chance of profit and risk of loss clearly support an employer/employee relationship. [61]          All things considered, I conclude that a comparison of the factors in this case applied with the case of Wiebe Door, supports the Worker’s intention to be an employee. ...

Charter principles in respect to freedom of speech under paragraph 2(b) may need to be considered. ... Personal information, voluntarily introduced at the hearing and by necessity considered by the judge in dismissing the Appellant’s appeal, was not sensitive information requiring non-publication. ... The only personal information that might need to be protected is the Appellant’s address for which the alternative measure of redacting this information could be considered. ...

Certainly an opposite-sex couple may, after many years together, be considered to be in a conjugal relationship although they have neither children nor sexual relations. Obviously the weight to be accorded the various elements or factors to be considered in determining whether an opposite-sex couple is in a conjugal relationship will vary widely and almost infinitely. ... In that regard, the case law of the Tax Court of Canada has clearly decided that the fact of living under the same roof does not, in itself, indicate a conjugal relationship and that this is just one of the criteria that must be considered. ...