Search - considered

Only subparagraph 8(1)(i) of the Act may now be considered in the analysis of this case. [6]      Mr. ... The requirement to rent an office or hire an assistant may be considered an implied term of the contract of employment if the circumstances of the employment are sufficient to support the existence of this requirement. ...

Rafford reviewed what he considered to be six comparable properties and concluded, after making various adjustments, that the average selling price of comparable properties in the area at the relevant time was $888.00 per acre. ... Rafford should have considered the sale of the four parcels of land to the Indian Band in determining comparable sales i.e. by ignoring the other sales to the Indian Band he was reducing the price paid for comparable land. [19]     In referring to Comparables 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Mr. ...

The Minister's auditor stated that he considered this letter somewhat ambiguous. As I understand it, the controller confirmed that the amounts shown as taxes should have been considered as rent, and that, in my opinion, is the import of the document. ...

The Appellant's claims on this issue in the Notice of Appeal are worth citing: [translation] (c)         The following amounts were considered when establishing my cost of living under the heading "tobacco, alcohol and drinks":-            2000: $1,275.00-            2001: $2,472.00-            2002: $1,162.15 I ask that the authorities at the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency consider an amount of $1,542.00 for 2001 instead of the established amount of $2,742.00. ... An amount of $1,200.00 should therefore be deducted from the $2,742.00 already considered for 2001. [16]     I must point out that the $2,472 was established by the Minister based on the Appellant's credit card statements and he is linked to the purchase of drinks at the SAQ. ...

It must be noted, however, that the person hired at the "La Tortue" post was still considered an employee ... Other than the $50 and food the Workers provided for the Comtois when they replaced them, and the fact that they were responsible for paying any discrepancies between the amounts collected and the amounts given to the Appellant, the Appellant could be considered completely in charge of the Workers. ...

The Minister is inferring that there was not sufficient work for her and ties into, perhaps, what I believe is what the Minister considered his strongest argument. [13]     With respect to 9(i) and (j), Doreen's duties included "receptionist and Girl Friday", which are not enumerated by the Minster. ... I agree with Doreen that this is insignificant and cannot be considered "work without pay". [17]     I believe the Minister drew an inference that the building that burned was key to a business operation. ...

In reaching that conclusion the judge concluded that the intention of the parties was a factor to be considered only if a tiebreak was needed ... Even if some administrative duties are mandatory, this is not a significant factor if the relationship is considered as a whole; ·         Although the contracts provide that live-in managers cannot take on other work, including volunteer work, the evidence suggests that the Association is flexible in this regard ...

(e)         On December 9, 2004, the Minister notified the Appellant in writing that she was considered Neil Gaucher's common-law partner from July 31, 2002, to August 2, 2004, and, consequently, that adjustments would be made to the tax benefits, GST credit and income tax. ... (h)         The Minister considered the Appellant and Neil Gaucher common-law partners from July 31, 2002, to August 2, 2004, which resulted in the following changes: (i)          Mr. ...

Whether the Appellant is considered to be an eligible individual re Jessica for the period July 2002 to June 2003 (the "Period") of the 2001 base taxation year and therefore, whether she is entitled to the CCTB for the Period pursuant to section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act. 2. ... (b)         Wholly dependent person − in the case of an individual who does not claim a deduction for the year because of paragraph (a) and who, at any time in the year, (i)          is (A)        a person who is unmarried and who does not live in a common-law partnership, or (B)        a person who is married or in a common-law partnership, who neither supported nor lived with their spouse or common-law partner and who is not supported by that spouse or common-law partner, and (ii)         whether alone or jointly with one or more other persons, maintains a self-contained domestic establishment (in which the individual lives) and actually supports in that establishment a person who, at that time, is (A)        except in the case of a child of the individual, resident in Canada, (B)        wholly dependent for support on the individual, or the individual and the other person or persons, as the case may be, (C)        related to the individual, and (D)        except in the case of a parent or grandparent of the individual, either under 18 years of age or so dependent by reason of mental or physical infirmity, an amount equal to the total of (iii)        $7,131, and (iv)        the amount determined by the formula                                                             $6,055 − (D − $606) where D          is the greater of $606 and the dependent person's income for the year. [20]     It will be noted that subparagraph 118(1)(b)(i) provides as follows: (b)         Wholly dependent person − in the case of an individual who does not claim a deduction for the year because of paragraph (a) and who, at any time in the year, (i)          is (A)        a person who is unmarried and who does not live in a common-law partnership, or (B)        a person who is married or in a common-law partnership, who neither supported nor lived with their spouse or common-law partner and who is not supported by that spouse or common-law partner, and [21]     I have carefully considered all of the evidence before me. ...

(ii) where the agreement or order is varied after April 1997 to change the child support amounts payable to the recipient, the day on which the first payment of the varied amount is required to be made,... [3]      With the exception of subparagraphs (f) and possibly (h) [3], the parties agree on the Minister's assumed facts as set out in paragraph 5 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal: In reassessing the Appellant and in confirming that reassessment, the Minister relied on the same assumptions of fact as follows: a)                  ... b)                   the Appellant and his Former Spouse have two children: Nicholas Alan, born May 25, 1984, and Matthew Thomas, born March 1, 1989; c)                   a Corollary Relief Judgment was issued on March 2, 1995 and required the Appellant to pay child support of $300 per month for each of the two children of the marriage; d)                   a Variation Order was issued on February 27, 2004; e)                   the first child support payment under the Variation Order was due on June 1, 2003; f)                    the Variation Order required the Appellant to pay child support of $504 per month from June 1, 2003 to December 1, 2003 and $400 per month commencing on January 1, 2004; g)                   the child support payments required by the Variation Order were for Matthew Thomas, and Nicholas Alan was no longer considered to be a dependant child; h)                   prior to June 1, 2003, the Appellant paid child support of $600 per month from January to April inclusive ($2,400) and $300 in May; and i)                     prior to June 1, 2003, the Appellant paid no more than $2,700 as child support payments. [4]      The Appellant represented himself at the hearing of this appeal under the Informal Procedure. ... I accept the Appellant's evidence that the $204 per month was ordered payable to his former spouse in respect of what the family Court judge considered to be the tax consequences she experienced. ...