Search - considered

It was also clear from the Appellant’s testimony that these benefits had been declared and considered in her monthly income. ... It sets out a number of important definitions as follows: “eligible individual” in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time; (a) resides with the qualified dependant; (b) is a parent of the qualified dependant who; (i) is the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant and who is not a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant; or (ii) is a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant; (c) is resident in Canada or, where the person is the cohabiting spouse or common-law partner of a person who is deemed under subsection 250(1) to be resident in Canada throughout the taxation year that includes that time, was resident in Canada in any preceding taxation year;. . . and for the purposes of this definition; (f) where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant’s female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent; (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph 122.6 eligible individual (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing; [Emphasis added.] ... Factors — 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. ...

., 2013 FCA 85, the Federal Court of Appeal considered the question of the weight to be afforded to the parties’ intention as to the nature of their relationship in determining whether a contract of service or a contract for services existed. ... No. 330 (Q.L.), the worker will be considered an employee. [24]         The Court also went on to point out that, in cases of highly skilled workers, the control test can be inadequate because the skills and expertise of the worker may exceed those of the employer, and therefore little supervision can be exercised over the manner in which the work is performed. [25]         The evidence showed that each Instructor had a high level of expertise and specialized training in music and music performance. ... The level of expertise of a worker is only one factor to be considered in assessing the level of control retained by the party for whom the work is performed. (2) Who provided the equipment? ...

The Respondent relies on comments in the case of General Electric Capital Canada Inc. v Canada [1] where Justice Hogan discounted entirely hours of those who he considered did not spend a meaningful amount of time working on the file. ... Those factors implying questionable behaviour of a party become, I suggest, more significant: conduct lengthening the duration, refusal to admit, improper, vexatious or unnecessary conduct – all these should be considered. ... It is easy to accuse an opponent of spending too much time on a file, but several factors should be considered before such a hasty criticism: the amount at issue was significant, the litigation covered 30 months, the onus was on the Appellants, the facts were complicated, experts were necessarily consulted though ultimately not called, economic policy and legislative history was researched, the provisions and regulations were complex, the clients were international. ...

The reimbursement amount was not paid in full because the agreed-upon amounts for the last two years of the agreement were not paid. [29]         Therefore, under the circumstances, the issue is whether the conditional portion of the sale price should have been considered when determining the proceeds of disposition of the shares. [30]         Under the three share purchase agreements taking effect on May 1, 2004, the purchase price of the shares is clearly stated in paragraph 4.1 of each of those agreements, subject to any adjustment provided for in the agreements. ... In such a situation the proceeds will be on account of capital and if there is a reasonable expectation at the time of disposition of the property that the conditions will be met, then the disposition is treated in the ordinary manner, and the original maximum amount is considered to be the sale price of the property. ... If the fiscal projections materialize, it follows that the disposition of the property will be treated in the usual way, and the original amount will be considered as the sale price of the property. ...

Can the end of the one-month period referred to in the notice be considered the end of the directorships? ... Hall, who struck me as an individual of integrity, who cooperated fully and helpfully after the defaults to see the CRA paid, and whose world has since collapsed around him, the reasonable director would have considered shutting the door and stopping the bleeding, or hiring new management. ... The Deakins made informed and considered decisions to use the source deductions and GST in part to pay its suppliers and employees and only remitted a portion to CRA. ...

CCTB: section 122.6 of the Act “eligible individual” in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is a parent of the qualified dependant who (i) is the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant and who is not a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant, or (ii) is a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant, (c) is resident in Canada or, where the person is the cohabiting spouse or common-law partner of a person who is deemed under subsection 250(1) to be resident in Canada throughout the taxation year that includes that time, was resident in Canada in any preceding taxation year, (d) is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or 149(1)(b), and (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse or common-law partner is, a Canadian citizen or a person who (i) is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (ii) is a temporary resident within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, who was resident in Canada throughout the 18 month period preceding that time, or (iii) is a protected person within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (iv) was determined before that time to be a member of a class defined in the Humanitarian Designated Classes Regulations made under the Immigration Act, and for the purposes of this definition, (f) where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant’s female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph 122.6 eligible individual (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing; [30]         In the case at bar, the parties agree that the issue is whether the appellant resided with child X during the periods at issue, that is, from July 2011 to June 2014. ... No. 144 (QL), Justice Rip considered the meaning of the expression ‟ reside with ˮ  under the former version of section 63 of the Act: Counsel for the respondent relied on Thomson v. ... All things considered, residence implies a certain constancy, a certain regularity or else a certain permanence according to a person’s usual lifestyle in relation to a given place and is to be distinguished from what might be called visits or stays for specific purposes or of a sporadic nature. ...

This includes considering and weighing all relevant circumstances, including those enumerated in the Rules which are relevant in the particular circumstances of the case. 5)     The acts of a party and events prior to the commencement of the legal proceeding may, in appropriate circumstances, be considered in awarding costs. The amount of costs awarded cannot exceed costs incurred after beginning to prepare the notice of appeal. [8] 6)     The successful party’s actual costs may be considered and taken into account in appropriate circumstances. [9] So too may the unsuccessful party’s actual, approximate or estimated costs. [10] 7)     “Traditionally the degree of indemnification represented by partial indemnity costs has varied between 50% and 75% of solicitor and client or substantial indemnity costs ” per Justice D. ... This would be in the $5 million range once post-reassessment interest is considered. [11] [13]         Given this, it was entirely reasonable and appropriate for the Appellant to take each of the Respondent’s motions very seriously, and vigorously and fully defend its right to have its appeal heard by this Court on the merits. ...

While waiting for her Application to be considered, she was unable to work until she received a work permit issued on October 20, 2011. [12]         The issue is whether Ms. ... The relevant portion is in paragraph 122.6(e) which requires that to be an “eligible individual” in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time: (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse or common-law partner is, a Canadian citizen or a person who (i) is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (ii) is a temporary resident within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, who was resident in Canada throughout the 18 month period preceding that time, or (iii) is a protected person within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (iv) was determined before that time to be a member of a class defined in the Humanitarian Designated Classes Regulations made under the Immigration Act, … Retroactive Benefits   [16]         The relevant provisions of the Act are: Eligible individuals 122.62(1) For the purposes of this subdivision, a person may be considered to be an eligible individual in respect of a particular qualified dependant at the beginning of a month only if the person has, no later than 11 months after the end of the month, filed with the Minister a notice in prescribed form containing prescribed information. ...   [11]              She had to file the prescribed form for the benefit within 11 months after the BPP that she is applying for in order to be considered an eligible individual ...

As noted in Royal Winnipeg Ballet at para. 64, the relevant factors must be considered “in the light of” the parties’ intent. ... Secondly, does the objective reality, based upon an analysis of the Wiebe Door factors, sustain or deny the subjective intention of the parties. [15]         The context in Connor Homes and, almost without exception, in all of the other authorities considered and reconciled within that leading authority are those of distant, arm’s length workers. ... All of these questions merge and overlap and must, in the majority of cases, be considered and answered together against the backdrop of all of the facts of the case. ...

If he is found to be functioning as a director, then he will be liable for those remittances. [22]         In accordance with the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Wheeliker v The Queen, 99 DTC 5658, where an individual is not legally a director on the books of a corporation, he or she may still be held liable as a director if that individual is functioning in the capacity of a corporate director. [23]         At paragraph 12 of Justice Bédard’s reasons in Beauchemin v The Queen, 2007 TCC 105, [2007] TCJ No. 43, he listed the following two factors that should be used to determine whether a person can be considered a de facto director of a corporation: [12] … (i) he or she ursurps that function by taking actions normally required of or reserved for the directors of a corporation under the incorporating legislation of the corporation concerned: for instance, participating in board of directors meetings, signing board resolutions, etc. ... Justice Bédard went on to state the following, at paragraph 13: [13] … I am of the opinion that a person who takes such actions can be considered a de facto director by third parties only if he or she introduces himself or herself as the director of the corporation or clearly suggests that he or she performs such actions as the director of the corporation. … [24]         However, in the case of Hartrell v The Queen, 2006 TCC 480, 2006 DTC 3548 (affirmed 2008 FCA 59), Justice Paris suggests that, in certain circumstances, taxpayers need not explicitly represent themselves as directors to third parties in order to be held liable, as Justice Bédard in Beauchemin contends. ... In the end, as the caselaw indicates, the question to be answered is whether individuals can be considered part of the corporate governing structure so as to make them liable for matters over which they assumed and exercised power, to some degree, as if they had been appointed a director of that corporation. ...