Search - considered

The terms of the Order have to be considered in accordance with the words used in it. ... There was no earlier Order for spousal support, and the later Order for $780 per month commencing September 1, 2000 in no way relates to the $6,000. [7]      I have considered the eight criteria in McKimmon v. ...

Analysis: [9]      The Appellant testified that if he had not successfully defended his position against the groundless criminal charges that had been made against him he would have lost his position as a Policeman and he would have lost his right to receive a pension from the City of Toronto (see Exhibit A-3). [10]     I accept the Appellant's testimony to the effect that the Appellant would have lost his right to receive a pension if he had not defended himself against the false allegations. [11]     Subsection 60(o.1) of the Income Tax Act (the " Act ") reads as follows: (o.1)      the amount, if any, by which the lesser of (i)          the total of all legal expenses (other than those relating to a division or settlement of property arising out of, or on a breakdown of, a marriage or common-law partnership) paid by the taxpayer in the year or in any of the 7 preceding taxation years to collect or establish a right to an amount of (A)        a benefit under a pension fund or plan (other than a benefit under the Canada Pension Plan or a provincial pension plan as defined in section 3 of that Act) in respect of the employment of the taxpayer or a deceased individual of whom the taxpayer was a dependant, relation or legal representative, or (B)        a retiring allowance of the taxpayer or a deceased individual of whom the taxpayer was a dependant, relation or legal representative, and (ii)         the amount, if any, by which the total of all amounts each of which is             (A)        an amount described in clause (i)(A) or (B)                         (I)         that is received after 1985, (II)        in respect of which legal expenses described in subparagraph (i) were paid, and (III)       that is included in computing the income of the taxpayer for the year or a preceding taxation year, or (B)        an amount included in computing the income of the taxpayer under paragraph 56(1)(l.1) for the year or a preceding taxation year,             exceeds the total of all amounts each of which is an amount deducted under paragraph (j), (j.01), (j.1) or (j.2) in computing the income of the taxpayer for the year or a preceding taxation year, to the extent that the amount may reasonably be considered to have been deductible as a consequence of the receipt of an amount referred to in clause (A), exceeds (iii)        the portion of the total described in subparagraph (i) in respect of the taxpayer that may reasonably be considered to have been deductible under this paragraph in computing the income of the taxpayer for a preceding taxation year; [12]     It will be noted that subsection 60(o.1) provides that a taxpayer may deduct legal expenses paid to collect or establish a right to a pension. ...

Many of the maintenance expenses were disallowed because they constituted capital items or were considered as personal use. ... Having considered that but bearing in mind that this is the informal procedure and that the agent for the Appellant is not a practicing member of a bar in Canada and considering the divided results, I am of the view that each party should pay its own costs. ...

Technically Ian may have been considered as still being in the custody of the Spouse but in fact was principally attending colleges or universities and spent most of his time in various residences close to the college/university he was attending. 5.             ... The payments continued to be made directly into the Spouse's bank account and, in my opinion, in light of that she must be considered to have had discretion as to the use of those amounts. ...

Djebbari was no longer a branch manager in September 1997 and the cancellation request was therefore not considered at that time but was instead forwarded to the company's financial service. ... Since he did not pay the premiums and the company paid them for him, those advances were rightly considered taxable earnings of the appellant's within the meaning of the Act. ...

Each case turns on its own facts. [9]            Section 2 of the Insurable Earnings and Collection of Premiums Regulations reads in part as follows: 2. (1) For the purposes of the definition "insurable earnings" in subsection 2(1) of the Act and for the purposes of these Regulations, the total amount of earnings that an insured person has from insurable employment is (a) the total of all amounts, whether wholly or partly pecuniary, received or enjoyed by the insured person that are paid to the person by the person's employer in respect of that employment, and (b) the amount of any gratuities that the insured person is required to declare to the person's employer under provincial legislation.... (3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), "earnings" does not include (a) the value of board, lodging and all other benefits received or enjoyed by a person in a pay period in respect of the employment if no cash remuneration is paid to the person by the person's employer in respect of the pay period; (a.1) any amount excluded as income under paragraph 6(1)(a) or (b) or subsection 6(6) or (16) of the Income Tax Act;... [10]          Insurable hours are determined under sections 10 and 94.1 of the Employment Insurance Regulations, as follows:                 10(1) Where a person's earnings are not paid on an hourly basis but the employer provides evidence of the number of hours that the person actually worked in the period of employment and for which the person was remunerated, the person is deemed to have worked that number of hours in insurable employment....                 94.1 Where, for the purposes of the Act and in respect of a benefit period established on or after January 5, 1997, a claimant presents evidence of a week or insurable employment that occurred before January 1, 1997, that week of insurable employment shall be considered to represent 35 hours of insurable employment. [11]          When all the circumstances of this appeal, including the testimony of the appellant's executive director and Ms. Pomerleau, the admissions and the documentary evidence, are considered in light of the Regulations, the Court is satisfied that the appellant has not discharged its burden of proving on the balance of evidence that the Minister's decision is unfounded in fact and in law. ...

She needs her car to travel from location to location on a regular basis. [6]            No receipts for any expenses were furnished which is a considerable weakness in the Appellant's case but not necessarily the end of it. [7]            Having considered the evidence presented, I have arrived at the following conclusions, namely: (a)            The amounts of $18,010.00 and $15,345.00 for the 1996 and 1997 taxation years are to be included as employment income of the Appellant in those respective years; (b)            The Appellant is not entitled to deduct the cost of supplies at $3,390.00 in the 1997 taxation year. ... (c)            With respect to the automobile expenses, I believe that considering the extensive use of the automobile in the Appellant's performance of her services, I would increase the business portion of the total expenses ($8,300.00) to eighty percent for a figure of $6,640.00. [8]            Consequently the total employment expenses for 1997 will be $6,640.00 plus the $50.00 for a total of $6,690.00. [8]            I have considered the Appellant's submission that in carrying out her duties she was more of an independent contractor entitled to deduction of expenses as opposed to a mere employee. ...

In my opinion, both counsel of record in this appeal in essence carried on a "cat fight" to use the expression used by Judge Bonner in the hearing of the two Motions mentioned later. [4]            I have carefully considered the Appellant's Motion Record, the Respondent's Motion Record and the Respondent's Book of Authorities. In reaching the conclusion below I have considered the following factors provided for in section 147(3) of the Rules, namely: (a)            the result of the proceeding; (b)            the amounts in issue; (c)            the importance of the issues; (d)            any offer of settlement made in writing; (e)            the volume of work; and (f)             the complexity of the issues.                 ...

The Appellant's spouse is to be considered as her spouse in 1996. ... In other words, even though the spouse had no income, he is considered to have the lower income and is the person entitled to the deduction even though it may be useless to that spouse. [6]            Obviously my sympathies in this matter are with the Appellant who has borne the child care expenses for her three children and the spouse made no contribution at all. ...

In his reasons, the Taxing Officer considered and accepted the Respondent's submission that no new evidence was presented nor were any new documents presented that had not been previously available to both parties. He considered the Appellant's explanation that this material aided counsel in preparing the appeal but found that there was no evidence provided to assist in determining the relevance, reasonableness and necessity of the material as being essential for the conduct of the appeal and accordingly taxed them off. ...