Search - considered

He was, with good reason, considered the owner of the business, as was acknowledged by his father, the majority shareholder ... He gave as an example the decision to launch into the ethnic food market, which was the reason for the purchase of the food store in Chomedy, an initiative which he considered much too big for the worker and his brothers. ... Certainly, that is how the process works when the shoe is on the other foot and benefits have been denied to claimants because their conditions of work for a related employer do not- when all the facts have been considered – measure up to the usual or normal conditions that applied – or could be expected to apply- to non-related workers under a substantially similar contract of employment ...

The worker clearly considered himself an independent contractor in 2003 and executed an agreement in December 2002 to reflect such a work relationship with the Appellant. He considered his work extended to the very broad spectrum of operating the entire plant with the other three crewmembers. ... The evidence of both the worker and Wark, including the contents of the contract, do not indicate that the five-week period was considered vacation but was given to the worker by a fair and reasonable employer who recognized that even the independent contractor required time away from his work. ...

In that respect, the Appellant said that he considered Mr. Marcotte as a contractor in training, as a partner or associate, even though the latter did not have a contractor's or power shovel operator's licence at the time. ... No. 995. [26]     The Appellant considered Mr. Marcotte a self-employed Worker, a contractor who moreover had introduced himself to him as such, not as an ordinary Worker, like the employees he had hired in his business. ... Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 983, in recalling that other factors must be considered, depending on the specific circumstances and facts of each case. ...

Counsel for the Respondent stated that based on the evidence that was presented to the Court he is satisfied that if the workers are considered to be employees of the Appellant they were employees of the Appellant only for three nights per week and not seven nights per week as assessed by the Minister ... 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. ... In order to make this determination the four criteria set out in Wiebe Door are factors to be considered. ...

I say yet again because since its passage in 1990, several decisions of the Tax Court of Canada and several judgments of this Court have already considered what workable meaning could be given to subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii). ... It was accepted that the Worker was and would be considered to be related to the Appellant for purposes of paragraph 5(2)(i) of the Act and thus not included in insurable employment but for the saving provisions in paragraph 5(3)(b). ... McDonnell indicated openly that had someone else came to him with a similar proposal as that of his daughter, he probably would not have considered it. ...

The Minister also ruled that the workers were considered to be working at arm's length with the Appellant as part of their employment because he was convinced that it was reasonable to conclude that each worker would have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment with the Appellant if they had been dealing with each other at arm's length having regard to the following circumstances: (denied)   (a)  The remuneration paid to each worker was reasonable given that they each worked 60 hours a week and given their administrative responsibilities; (denied)   (b)  the work schedule of each of the workers, as that of the Appellant's other employees, was based on the Appellant's requirements; (denied)   (c)  the workers' work period met the Appellant's actual requirements; (admitted)   (d)  each of the workers rendered services to the Appellant, in his own respective area of activity that was essential to the Appellant's activities. ...     [46]     With respect to the facts considered, she based her analysis on the following elements:   ·         the size of salaries with relation to competency and scope of responsibilities; ·         the quality of administration and results obtained; ·         the contents of the agreement entered into by the shareholders; and ·         the nature and importance of the responsibilities assumed ... [61]      Appeals Officer Jacynthe Bélanger considered all of the relevant facts in her analysis. ...

He also considered Mr. Grove's education, roughly "a grade 12 education", and that Mr. ... Woods stated that he considered that Mr. Grove maintained records and participated in the preparation of his tax returns. ... Grove had incurred a loan of, say $20,000, he would have considered $20,000 as a living expense. ...

  [21]     The agent for the Appellant also pointed out that the Appellant's employment had already been considered insurable in the past ...   [22]     It is important to note at the outset that just because employment has been considered insurable in the past does not necessarily mean that it is insurable during another period. ...   [29]     First of all, I will say that the comparison between a wage of $7 to $7.30 an hour for a person considered to be a cook's helper and the $10 an hour the Appellant was paid as a cook is not a meaningful comparison, since it is not based on a characteristic common to both persons. ...

The issue was considered by both parties and on December 2, 1997, Carol’s solicitor advised the Appellant’s solicitor that her client had obtained a fulltime position as at December 15, 1997, and was prepared to pay child support pursuant to the Guidelines in the amount of $285 per month. ... With respect to paragraphs (b)(ii) and (iii), the following evidence must be considered. ... Counsel for the Respondent, who quite properly took a neutral role in the course of this hearing, made reference to decisions of both the Tax Court and the Federal Court to the effect that a written agreement does not necessarily require the affixing of signatures of the parties and, that in certain circumstances, an exchange of letters signed by solicitors of the taxpayer and the spouse with the intent and effect of binding both the taxpayer and the spouse, was considered to be adequate. [5] However, there is no evidence to support a conclusion that the letters in issue were written with the intent and effect of binding the respective clients. ...

In determining whether their decisions are valid the question is not whether they exercised their powers properly or wrongly, but whether they acted as the law governing them required them to act. [13]     The issue was most recently considered in the context of an application for judicial review where a taxpayer had been denied access to certain information that was available to the appeals officer: Webster v. ... Canada, [11] the Court of Appeal considered the applicability of the abuse of process doctrine to the conduct of the CCRA during an investigation/audit in an income tax appeal. [12] The Court concluded that there was no abuse of process on the facts and did not address the threshold question of whether the assessment should be quashed even if there were an abuse of process. ... This position was subsequently abandoned and accordingly I have not considered it. [4]           (2001) 152 C.C.C. (3d) 270 (S.C.C.). [5]           (1979) 24 O.R. 742 (Ont. ...