Search - considered

Her Majesty The Queen, 2008 FCA 89 at paragraph 9, Justice Sexton of the Federal Court of Appeal wrote: [9] …in order for subsection 160(1) of the Act to apply, the following four criteria must be met: 1) There must be a transfer of property; 2) The parties must not be dealing at arm’s length; 3) There must be no consideration or inadequate consideration flowing from the transferee to the transferor (I would note that the trial judge considered the test to be “No consideration or inadequate consideration flowing from the transferor to the transferee ” [emphasis added]: this is a mistaken quotation of the test as cited in Raphael v. ... They have done so in several contexts. [17]         Payments to a Bank or through a bank which have the effect of a transfer from the transferor to the transferee will nonetheless engage section 160 of the Act because the Bank is considered a mere conduit: Medland v. ...

However, if there had been a loss of life or a catastrophic accident, he would have relied on the vehicle owner’s insurance policy because most policies have third party insurance. [12]         I note that no vehicle owner’s insurance policy was submitted in evidence. [13]         The delivery of the vehicle was considered complete when the vehicle was brought to the designated recipient or his or her representative, who signed the Vehicle Delivery Record. ... In certain circumstances, other services may also be considered freight transportation services. ...

If I add only the amount of tips which she admitted receiving from Chez Ronnie in 1993, that is, $102, the result is a total of $925 in tips for 1993. [21]     It is quite clear that, if one considered the fact that the appellant worked as a waitress during her first two weeks of employment at Chez Ronnie, it could be supposed that the amount of tips from that establishment was much greater than $102. [22]     Moreover, I found Ms. ... Blais, the auditor considered only sales related to the operation of the dining room and did not include sales of alcoholic beverages. ...

Even if I considered that the agreement was not a contract for the supply of legal services by Heenan Blaikie, I would have to acknowledge that the appellant was still required to pay for those services under paragraph 4 of that agreement, which means that the appellant would still have to be regarded as the recipient of the supply, not under s. 123(1)(a), but under s. 123(1)(b) of the Act. In other words, as the appellant was liable under paragraph 4 of the agreement to pay the consideration for the legal services rendered to Midland, the result is the same whether the May 12, 1992 agreement is considered to be an agreement for the supply of legal services or not. [12] At the start of the hearing counsel for the respondent raised an additional point of law, namely that the appellant was not entitled to claim the input tax credits for the fees paid by Midland with the appellant's money. ...

By letter dated September 9, 1996, the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file a Notice of Objection for the 1994 taxation year and the objection was considered to have been filed on the date of the said letter. 10. ... " [4] Subsections 118.3(1) and 118.4(1) of the Income Tax Act ("the Act ") provide: "118.3 (1) Where (a) an individual has a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment, (a.1) the effects of the impairment are such that the individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted, (a.2) a medical doctor, or where the impairment is an impairment of sight, a medical doctor or an optometrist, has certified in prescribed form that the individual has a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment the effects of which are such that the individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted, (b) the individual has filed for a taxation year with the Minister the certificate described in paragraph (a.2), and (c) no amount in respect of remuneration for an attendant or care in a nursing home, in respect of the individual, is included in calculating a deduction under section 118.2 (otherwise than because of paragraph 118.2(2)(b.1)) for the year by the individual or by any other person, for the purposes of computing the tax payable under this Part by the individual for the year, there may be deducted an amount determined by the formula A x $4,118 where A is the appropriate percentage for the year. 118.4 (1) For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or can reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b) an individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding and dressing oneself, (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi) walking; and (d) for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. ...

., contends the respondent, unless the Minister has not had regard to all the circumstances of the employment (as required by subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii) of the Act), has considered irrelevant factors, or has acted in contravention of some principle of law, the court may not interfere. ... If, however, those facts are, in the opinion of the court, insufficient in law to support the conclusion arrived at by the Minister, his determination cannot stand and the court is justified in intervening. [12]          There are thus four tests which the Tax Court of Canada can apply in deciding whether it is justified in intervening:                 the Minister of National Revenue (1)            has not had regard to all the circumstances; (2)            has considered irrelevant factors; (3)            has acted in contravention of some principle of law; or (4)            has based his decision on insufficient facts. [13]          In Ferme Émile Richard et Fils Inc. (178 N.R. 361) of December 1, 1994, the Federal Court of Appeal summarized Tignish Auto Parts Inc. as follows:... ...

To formulate a decision then, the overall evidence must be considered taking into account those of the tests which may be applicable and giving to all the evidence the weight which the circumstances may dictate. ... 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 be taken, 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. ...

They are therefore considered true. [13] (k) the appellant’s weekly wages increased from $200 in the spring of 1992 to $350 in the fall of 1992 and $500 in the spring of 1994; [admitted subject to amplification] The evidence given through the testimony of both the appellant and Mr. ... The Court considered those facts to be established, and in particular 5(h), (i) and (j) ([12]). [25] It is also true that a number of the facts alleged by the respondent involve an inherently negative aspect: 5(d), (e), (f), (j), (k), (m), (n), (o), (p) and (q). ...

McDonald, the appellant had only one or few employees and he considered all the operations as being only one business. [18] On this latter point, I do not think I can conclude that all the appellant's operations consisted in only one business. ... Its income from management services and the commissions received on rentals should therefore be considered as coming from a different source of income than the rentals. [19] Accordingly, the income from these sources does not constitute income from leasing, rental, development or sale, or any combination thereof, of real property within the meaning of subsection 1100(12) of the Regulations. [20] The only tangible evidence I have for the purposes of determining whether the appellant's principal business during the relevant years was the leasing or rental of property consists of the gross income from those activities, the net losses or profits from those same activities, and the assets of the appellant from which the rental income flowed. ...

(Emphasis added) [10] Subsection 118.4(1) of the Act reads as follows: For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or can reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b) an individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding and dressing oneself, (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi) walking; and (d) for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. ... (F.C.A.), in which it considered what may constitute an inordinate amount of time, particularly as regards feeding oneself, a basic activity of daily living. ...