Search - considered

In this subdivision " cohabiting spouse "- "cohabiting spouse" of an individual at any time means the person who at that time is the individual's spouse or common-law partner 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 or common-law partnership, for a period of at least 90 days that includes that time; History: S. 122.6, the definition "cohabiting spouse" was amended by S.C. 2000, c. 12, Sched. 2, s. 1(z. 1) and 9(h), applicable to the 2001 and subsequent taxation years,... ... 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.... ...

The terms set out in the draft proposal would be considered as being terms of any final agreement if the proposal was ever put into effect. ... That could hardly be considered to be an expense on behalf of the company. ... It was argued by the Respondent that if the expenses were not specific and properly identified then any amounts that are received are considered to be receipts on account of income according to bookkeeping standards. [22]     The Court looks for some evidence of corroboration for the evidence of one or the other. ...

      (2) Where a catch is delivered in Canada to a buyer or to a buyer's agent by a member of the crew that made the catch, the buyer shall be considered to be the employer of all fishers who are members of that crew and who share in the proceeds from the sale of the catch ...   [21]     Counsel for the respondent has argued that the appellants may not be considered self-employed workers since they do not met the requirements established by the case law for being self-employed workers. ... Consequently, they may not be considered employees of by Nico or of Poséidon during the periods at issue. ...

Mulvenna's benefit period of March 1997 to September 1997 appears on a plain reading of section 8 to be part of her qualifying period for the purposes of calculating insurable hours that accrue to the next benefit period. [7]      Having found her benefit period from March to September 1997 can be considered as part of the qualifying period, for purposes of determining insurable hours, the calculation of such hours becomes the issue. ... First, if subsection 10.1(2) is considered, (that is the subsection dealing with a lump sum paid to an employee on leave) the number of hours is determined on the basis of the lesser of two items, one being the lump sum divided by the normal hourly rate. ... Mulvenna was on leave. [12]     Third, the Respondent argues that if this type of absence is to be considered leave, it is not paid leave, notwithstanding she received the top-up from her employer. ...

For this reason, hairdressers, taxi drivers, trainees/apprentices and persons under contract with an employment agency, to name a few, are included in insurable employment notwithstanding that under a traditional employee/independent contractor analysis, they would most often be considered independent contractors. ... However, pursuant to s. 6(e) of the Regulations, it is equally clear that the Commission has chosen not to do so by indicating that where taxidrivers are the operators of the business, they will not be considered to be included in "insurable employment". ...   [19]      In any event, in Skyline Cabs, MacGuigan J. said that if Skyline had merely owned automobiles which were equipped to operate as taxicabs and which were offered for rent to licensed taxicab drivers at a set rental fee, he would not have considered that the taxis were used by Skyline for carrying passengers as required by former paragraph 12(e) of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations (now paragraph 6(e) of the EIR). ...

After the appellant- her brother- had received the ruling informing him that his employment with the payor was considered to have been uninsurable for purposes of the Act, Subjit Dheenshaw stated she contacted an office of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) in an effort to determine the sort of evidence required to demonstrate to the Minister that the parties were dealing with each other on an arm's length basis. ... In Subjit Dheenshaw's opinion- based on her participation in the business affairs of the farm over many years- her father always considered the payment of wages to employees to have been a priority and had borrowed money in order to meet the payroll even though he had not established a Line of Credit specifically for the business. [4]      In cross-examination by counsel for the respondent, Subjit Dheenshaw recounted the procedures required to be undertaken during a growing season. ... 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). ...

There is clearly case law supporting this position and to bolster its argument the Respondent relies on section 9.1 of the Regulations which reads:                              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. [11]                        The collective agreement at paragraph 24.07 provides as follows:                              An employee found to be wrongfully discharged or suspended will be reinstated without loss of seniority and with back-pay calculated at an hourly rate... times normal hours, less any monies earned, or by any other arrangement which is just and equitable in the opinion of the Arbitration Board. ... It was found, again, that a person who does not perform any work or receive any "wages" does not hold insurable employment. [22]                        It is very difficult for me to distinguish the case at bar from the cases considered by the Federal Court of Appeal and I am thereby not able to apply a law at variance with that applied by it. ... What he received under the settlement agreement was, in my view, nothing less than damages for a breach by the employer in improperly excluding the Appellant from the work that the collective agreement required to be performed by him. [28]                        In that regard I can find no distinction in this case from the cases that the Federal Court of Appeal considered when finding that compensatory payments for breaches of employment contracts are not payments covered by the Employment Insurance Act. [29]                        While I acknowledge that the Appellant has put forward some cogent arguments and while I am troubled by the fact that the payments in question might, but for the binding decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal, have been found to be insurable under the definition in paragraph 2(1) of the Regulations, I am compelled to follow the decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal. ...

Pyke are qualified real estate valuators whose evidence ought to be considered as expert opinion by the Court in determining the fair market value of the Subject Property on V-day. ... Bower said at page 24: The overall average and median sale price of the 12 sales considered is $60,506/acre and $54,965/acre. The 3 largest site sales considered averaged $46,314/acre. The 3 site sales located in the City of Windsor average $70,520/acre. [26]     Mr. ...

By those reassessments the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) added to the Appellant's income, as previously assessed, certain amounts that he considered were deemed to be income of the Appellant by reason of subsection 74.1(2) of the Income Tax Act (the Act). ... The result is that paragraph 74.5(1)(a) precludes the operation of subsection 74.1(2) in the circumstances of the present case. [8]      That does not end the matter, however, as the Crown sought to advance an alternative position in support of the assessment, based upon subsection 74.4(2), which reads: 74.4(2) Where an individual has transferred or lent property, either directly or indirectly, by means of a trust or by any other means whatever, to a corporation and one of the main purposes of the transfer or loan may reasonably be considered to be to reduce the income of the individual and to benefit, either directly or indirectly, by means of a trust or by any other means whatever, a person who is a designated person in respect of the individual, in computing the income of the individual for any taxation year that includes a period after the loan or transfer throughout which (a)         the person is a designated person in respect of the individual and would have been a specified shareholder of the corporation if the definition "specified shareholder" in subsection 248(1) were read without reference to paragraphs (a) and (d) of that definition and if the reference therein to "any other corporation that is related to the corporation" were read as a reference to "any other corporation (other than a small business corporation) that is related to the corporation", (b)         the individual was resident in Canada, and (c)         the corporation was not a small business corporation, the individual shall be deemed to have received as interest in the year the amount, if any, by which (d)         the amount that would be interest on the outstanding amount of the loan or transfer of the property for such periods in the year if the interest were computed thereon at the prescribed rate of interest for such periods exceeds the total of (e)         any interest received in the year by the individual in respect of the transfer or loan (other than amounts deemed by this subsection to be interest), (f)         5/4 of all taxable dividends received (other than dividends deemed by section 84 to have been received) by the individual in the year on shares that were received from the corporation as consideration for the transfer or as repayment for the loan that were excluded consideration at the time the dividends were received or on shares substituted therefore that were excluded consideration at that time. ... In particular, there is no allegation that one of the main purposes of the transfer of property may reasonably be considered to be to reduce the income of the Appellant and to benefit a designated person. ...

She was considered to have suffered an occupational injury beginning on January 15, 1996, and received CSST benefits until September 22, 1997. ... She maintained, however, that it was not a pension, a salary, or a retiring allowance but rather compensatory damages for the harm suffered as a result of her employment injury, which according to her was not taxable within the meaning of the Act. [13]     Unfortunately for the appellant, whether the amount she received upon the settlement of her grievance is considered as a reimbursement of salary or as compensation for damages sustained, in any event, this income is taxable under the Act, as I shall explain below. [14]     On the one hand, on reading the grievance settlement (Exhibit A-12), it is clear that the employer, Hydro-Québec, agreed to pay the appellant (the grievor) the amount of $35,000, payable in two equal payments, as reimbursement of salary. ...             (1) Subject to this Part, a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from an office or employment is the salary, wages and other remuneration, including gratuities, received by the taxpayer in the year. [15]     Although the amount thus paid by the employer could be considered as compensation for damages, it was also taxable as a retiring allowance within the meaning of subparagraph 56(1)(a)(ii). ...