Search - considered

Therefore, it will prove to be difficult to obtain information from the receiver rather than BLIG. [2] An affidavit was adduced at the hearing confirming that BLIG was placed into receivership. [15]         The criteria to be considered by the Court in deciding whether to allow a party to amend its pleadings is enunciated in Canderel Ltd. v R, [1993] 3 CTC 213 (FCA), at paragraph 10. ...

Consequently, the director of 4158831 Canada Inc. cannot be held solidarily liable for the amounts owed to the Minister by this corporation and the assessment on which this liability is based cannot be considered to be valid. [13]         In a notice of motion filed with the Court on October 17, 2014, that is, the following day, counsel for the respondent attempted to remedy the default and asked the Court to issue an order to allow it to adduce the following documents by affidavit: (a) the certificate registered with the Federal Court under section 316 of the ETA; (b) the writ of seizure and sale dated February 27, 2007; (c) the return of nulla bona dated February 28, 2007. [14]         Counsel for the appellant opposed the production of these documents, and the motion was heard on March 31, 2015. ...

She ultimately concluded that, considered as a whole, that provision does not apply to surrogacy arrangements, the main reason being that the surrogate who receives the transplant is not a patient as defined in paragraph 118.2(2)(a) of the ITA. ...

He stated: In drawing the line between “ordinary” negligence or neglect and “gross” negligence a number of factors have to be considered. ...

He could not explain why he considered that a gift allegedly made in 2008 could qualify as an eligible gift for his 2007 taxation year. [6]              Ms. ...

Along with the Five Binders the CRA sent a letter to the Appellant advising that the completion of the CRA’s review should not be considered as permission to destroy any books or records. [5] [8]              The Minister confirmed the assessment on August 3, 2012. ...

As noted in Royal Winnipeg Ballet at para. 64, the relevant factors must be considered “in the light of” the parties’ intent. ...

In Royal Winnipeg Ballet the Federal Court of Appeal had similarly said the traditional Sagaz and Wiebe Door factors must be considered in the light of the parties' intent. [9]              This second step is otherwise the same as how the Court would proceed in cases where there is no common shared intention regarding the characterization of the work relationship by the parties. [10]         So, following that approach and applying it, I will turn to intention first. ...

I would have considered an award of costs against the appellant, but the Crown did not ask for them. [9]              I now turn to the specific items in dispute. ...

The Appeal [9]              Paragraph 8(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (“ ITA ”) reads:   (1) Deductions allowed-- In computing a taxpayer 's income for a taxation year from an office or employment, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto:   (c) clergy residence-- where, in the year, the taxpayer   (i) is a member of the clergy or of a religious order or a regular minister of a religious denomination, and   (ii) is   (A) in charge of a diocese, parish or congregation,   (B) ministering to a diocese, parish or congregation, or   (C) engaged exclusively in full-time administrative service by appointment of a religious order or religious denomination,   the amount, not exceeding the taxpayer 's remuneration for the year from the office or employment, equal to   (iii) the total of all amounts including amounts in respect of utilities, included in computing the taxpayer 's income for the year under section 6 in respect of the residence or other living accommodation occupied by the taxpayer in the course of, or because of, the taxpayer 's office or employment as such a member or minister so in charge of or ministering to a diocese, parish or congregation, or so engaged in such administrative service, or   (iv) rent and utilities paid by the taxpayer for the taxpayer 's principal place of residence (or other principal living accommodation), ordinarily occupied during the year by the taxpayer, or the fair rental value of such a residence (or other living accommodation), including utilities, owned by the taxpayer or the taxpayer 's spouse or common-law partner, not exceeding the lesser of   (A) the greater of   (I) $1,000 multiplied by the number of months (to a maximum of ten) in the year, during which the taxpayer is a person described in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), and   (II) one-third of the taxpayer 's remuneration for the year from the office or employment, and   (B) the amount, if any, by which   (I) the rent paid or the fair rental value of the residence or living accommodation, including utilities   exceeds   (II) the total of all amounts each of which is an amount deducted, in connection with the same accommodation or residence, in computing an individual 's income for the year from an office or employment or from a business (other than an amount deducted under this paragraph by the taxpayer), to the extent that the amount can reasonably be considered to relate to the period, or a portion of the period, in respect of which an amount is claimed by the taxpayer under this paragraph; [10]         At the hearing, the Appellant stated that he satisfied the conditions given in paragraph 8 (1)(c) of the ITA. ...