Search - considered

For particular purposes Parliament can and does create its own lexicon. [22]   The Supreme Court noted that the “elements” of a commercial fishing licence “do not wholly correspond to the full range of rights necessary to characterize something as ‘property’ at common law”. [12] However, the Court then considered the BIA ’s statutory definition and purpose. The Court found that the statutory definition of “property” in the BIA “unambiguously signalled an intention to sweep up a variety of assets of the bankrupt not normally considered ‘property’ at common law.” [13] The Court found that the BIA ’s purpose was to “fulfill certain objectives in the event of a bankruptcy which require, in general, that non-exempt assets be made available to creditors.” [14] Consequently, the Court concluded that the BIA ’s definition of “property” included a commercial fishing licence. [23]   With respect, the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Manrell dealing with the definition of “property” under the Income Tax Act is a far more persuasive authority than a Supreme Court of Canada decision dealing with the definition of “property” in an entirely different legislative context. ... Therefore, I have not considered whether James transferred a “right to invoice for legal services” in that role. ...

The fact that the fair market value of the shares of Holdings has been erroneously calculated has not been contested during the hearing of the appeal. [34]   It is also clear in jurisprudence that an error made when filing a tax return whether made in good faith, by inadvertence or by a simple calculation error is considered to be a misrepresentation within the meaning of subparagraph 152(a)(i) of the Act (Mont-Bruno v. ... Canada, 2008 FCA 206, the executor of an estate was considered to have been negligent in the performance of his duties to ensure that the terminal return was properly filed. ... Grossbaum did not explain why he considered that dividend was not collectible. ...

The Court then referred to the non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered: [47] … In making this determination, the level of control the employer has over the worker’s activities will always be a factor. ... The Minister of National Revenue, 2013 FCA 85, [2013] FCJ No. 327, at paras. 38 to 42, the Federal Court of Appeal considered the weight to be given to the parties’ intention in determining whether a worker is an employee (contract of service) or an independent contractor (contract for services). ... No. 330 (Q.L.), the worker will be considered an employee. [24]   At paragraph 75 of Wolf, the Court noted that in the case of skilled workers, the control test can be inadequate because little supervision or control can be exercised over the way in which the work is done. [25]   The Appellant testified that her responsibilities initially consisted of general bookkeeping, entering accounts receivable, calculating payroll semi-monthly, and preparing cheques for signature. ...

  [21]   In the 14   March   2014 occupancy permit comments section, the list of items to be done prior to the final occupancy permit was relatively modest. [22]   The absence on the 14   March   2014 of the required items did not prevent the Appellant and her husband from being able to make normal use of the house. [23]   While the first occupancy certificate is not in itself determinative, the fact that it permits residential occupancy combined with the relatively minor list of items that are required to be done before issuance of a final certificate are significant factors to be considered. [24]   The Appellant took the position that the first occupancy certificate should not have much impact because the certificate was issued to them only because the inspector knew that they would not be living there all the time. [25]   The difficulty I   have with the Appellant’s position based on this last point is twofold. ... Whatever may or may not have been said to the Appellant by the Canada Revenue Agency does not modify the Act and my obligation is to apply the Act and the substantial completion test in that Act to the facts in evidence before me. [32]   What advice might or might not have been given might, however, be a relevant question to be considered by the Minister if she received a request to extend the time pursuant to paragraph   256(3)(b) of the Excise Tax Act. ... The Queen. [11] [39]   Starting in October   2015, the Appellant and her husband have considered the new house near Lake Huron to be there primary place of residence. [40]   The Appellant and her husband changed their address for their driver’s licenses and health cards to the new house in the second half of 2015. ...

MacIntosh should not be considered a supporting person of her son. In other words, Ms.  ... MacIntosh should not be considered a supporting person of her son, at least in the financial sense of the term. ... MacIntosh primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of her son. [9] See condition (c) of the definition of “eligible individual” in section 122.6. [10] Computed without reference to certain inclusions and deductions, as detailed in the definition of “adjusted income” in section 122.6. [11] See section 122.6 of the Act. [12] For this purpose, they will not be considered to be living separate and apart unless they are living separate and apart because of a breakdown of their marriage or common-law partnership for a period of at least 90 days. ...

While a failure to inquire may be evidence of recklessness or criminal negligence, as for example, where a failure to inquire is a marked departure from the conduct expected of a reasonable person, wilful blindness is not simply a failure to inquire but, to repeat Professor Stuart’s words, “deliberate ignorance”. [50] The subjective nature of the wilful blindness standard also means that the personal attributes of the individual may be considered in determining whether the individual is wilfully blind. [51] In contrast, the objective nature of the gross negligence standard means that the personal attributes of the individual are not relevant unless the individual establishes that he or she is incapable of understanding the risk the individual has failed to avoid (see R. v. ... Any relevant factor may be considered and there is a fair amount of overlap in what is relevant to either standard. [34]   Justice Miller of this Court enumerated a useful list of matters to be considered in determining whether there is wilful blindness or not in the case of Torres v. ...

The Court then referred to the non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered: [47] … In making this determination, the level of control the employer has over the worker’s activities will always be a factor. ... The Minister of National Revenue, 2013 FCA 85, [2013] FCJ No. 327, at paras. 38 to 42, the Federal Court of Appeal considered the weight to be given to the parties’ intention in determining whether a worker is an employee (contract of service) or an independent contractor (contract for services). ... No. 330 (Q.L.), the worker will be considered an employee. [30]   At paragraph 75 of Wolf, the Court noted that in the case of skilled workers such as pilots and doctors, the control test can be inadequate because little supervision or control can be exercised over the way in which the work is done. [31]   Mr. ...

In Algoa Trust v Canada, [1993] 1 C.T.C. 2294, Rip J. at paragraphs 46 and 49, concluded that the payment of a dividend by a corporation in money or other property will be considered a “transfer” of property for the purposes of subsection 160(1). ... While one factor alone may not necessarily be conclusive, when considered together, it is clear on the facts before me that Mr.  ... None of the remaining documents, the promissory note, the loan agreement or the security agreement make any reference that could connect the dividend to this loan. [32]   Consequently, based on the evidence before me, I am of the view that the dividend payment must be considered as a separate transaction without consideration in return. ...

The Court is, however, of the opinion that, during the two to three months this company was actually in operation, these two individuals may be considered to have been its directors. 4.02.2 First of all, it is difficult to overlook Mr. ... Pedeault also be considered a director of the said company? This Court is of the opinion that the answer to this question should be in the affirmative. ... Pedeault and Champagne both be considered to have been directors of the company during the corporate existence of Radio Régionale 02 Ltée. 4.04 It is however also necessary to determine if Mr. ...

For the purposes of this paragraph the payments made by the husband hereunder shall be considered to be the last income or earnings of the wife and income tax thereon shall be computed accordingly. ... The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer's training, the taxpayer's intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ... In this respect, the situation in the present appeals is totally different from that considered by Teskey, J. of this Court in the case of Kay B. ...