Search - considered

Haleem’s appeal was heard, the Federal Court released a decision in the matter of Onex Corporation, [12] which considered but distinguished the decision in Banff Caribou. [24] I rely on Banff Caribou only for the limited purpose of showing that decisions about whether to accept late filed elections under subsection 220(3.2) of the ITA are examples of discretionary decisions that are reviewed by the Federal Court using the reasonableness standard specified by the Supreme Court in Vavilov. ... Discretionary decisions may be based on a variety of factors not strictly set out in the tax statute, such as policy considerations. [18] That kind of decision-making is not the same as the decision to assess tax which must follow the law of the tax statute. [19] [29] It may be argued that while some decisions are discretionary, their impact on an assessment entails that they must be considered when this Court decides if the assessment is correct. That was the crux of Dow Chemical’s argument. [20] The Supreme Court disagreed and characterized that argument as significantly expanding the meaning of ‘assessment’. [21] [30] The Supreme Court considered, in great detail, the consequences of allowing this Court to consider discretionary decisions of the Minister as part of its review of tax assessments. ...

After that has been done, the objective factors are considered. In Wiebe Door Services Ltd. v MNR, the Federal Court of Appeal set out the following objective factors that help distinguish between independent contractors and employees: (1) control; (2) ownership of the tools; (3) chance of profit; and (4) risk of loss. [6] No single factor predominates and no mechanical formula is to be applied. In his recent decision in 0808498 BC Ltd. v MNR, Justice Sommerfeldt offered a useful summary of the factors to be considered in making this determination: a) Does the hirer control the worker’s activities? ... De Ramos that he would now be considered a contractor in respect of the night shift. [16] Transcript, page 48, line 5 to page 49, line 17. [17] Transcript, page 59, line 22 to page 60, line 5. [18] Appellant’s Closing Submissions, paras 15 and 32. [19] Ibid., paras 16 and 32. [20] Transcript, page 30, lines 19-24. [21] Transcript, page 74, lines 18-21. ...

It does not encompass all cases in which a taxpayer goes from a place inside the metropolitan area to a place just outside it. [10]          A very large number of cases have considered claims made for deductions under paragraph 8(1) (g), or its predecessor subsection 11(7), both before and since Derrien, but the correctness of that decision has never been doubted. ... R., [5] the Supreme Court has yet again cautioned that there is no justification to depart from the plain meaning of statutory language and apply any of the many canons of construction unless it is first shown that the language chosen by Parliament, considered in its context within the statute as a whole, is ambiguous. ...

Only if the answer to the first question is “no” and the answer to the second question is “yes” will the amount received be considered a retiring allowance. ... I would point out, however, that general damages relating to human rights violations can be considered as being unrelated to a loss of employment ...

They therefore acted in concert with a common economic interest, so that the taxpayer in fact could not be considered to have been dealing at arm's length with the corporation. [16]     Similarly, in Gosselin, supra, two equal shareholders, although not related to each other, had, together with the corporation, common interests and were acting in concert. ... The comments of Cattanach, J., who considered the question of a directing mind in M.N.R. v. ...

At p. 407 she stated: Counsel for the Respondent raises the point that travelling between home and the office has always been considered personal expense. ... An employee may have multiple work locations and travel to such places from his or her home is considered personal travel: Carter, supra. ...

Taylor, [1956] C.T.C. 189, 56 D.T.C. 1253, the President of the Exchequer Court of Canada, as it then was, carried out quite a complete examination of the factors which must be considered in order to establish whether a transaction involves the elements of an adventure in the nature of trade or disposition of an asset in the nature of capital. ... When considered as a whole, the appellant's activities during the period between 1977 and 1981 are much more of the essence of real estate speculation, which was prompted by special and very specific economic circumstances, than of an attempt to carry out a capital project as he claims. ...

If a person who meets the status test is employed within a congregation, he or she is considered to be ministering to a congregation if he or she is fulfilling a pastoral or ministerial role in the manner requested by that congregation. If a person who meets the status test is employed by a religious organization outside the order or religious denomination, he or she is considered to be ministering to a congregation such as a church, a chaplaincy audience, or a disadvantaged group if he or she is fulfilling a pastoral or ministerial role consistent with the religious ministry of the organization in which such person has status. 14. ...

It is clear from the Order that Belleghem J considered the income earning capacity of the Former Spouse when he ordered the Appellant to make support payments. ... This is not a personal characteristic enumerated in section 15; nor is it analogous to a ground enumerated in section 15: Stanwick v Her Majesty the Queen, [1999] 1 CTC 143 (FCA). [16]         Several judges of this Court have also considered whether subsection 118(5) was contrary to section 15 of the Charter. ...

The objectives of efficiency, effectiveness, practicality and the ‘need to get on with the litigation’ also play a part in the Court’s decision for full disclosure: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v R, 2013 TCC 170 at paragraph 106. [18]         When deciding whether it would exercise its discretion to grant an order for full disclosure of documents, this Court has also considered the importance of the principle of proportionality in tax litigation. ... In the recent decision of Torres v R, 2013 TCC 380, C Miller J. analyzed the existing case law with respect to gross negligence penalties and identified the leading principles which were considered in those cases. ...