Search - considered

This point has already been considered by the Federal Court of Appeal, in Breault v. ... How could it be considered that any such decision could make the Minister functus officio and relieve her of her power to make determinations? ...

For these reasons, the appeal is allowed and the appellant's employment during the periods at issue is insurable. [58] It is thus clear that Judge Garon ruled on the two paragraphs in question. [59] In her report the appeals officer wrote (at p. 2): [TRANSLATION] The appellant Raymond Tremblay appealed to the Tax Court of Canada with respect to those same periods, but also with respect to the period from July 10 to October 20, 1995, which had not yet been considered by the Minister. ... After verification, Réjean Bergeron, a technical officer in our office, accepted the appeal and considered the date of posting, i.e. ...

The latter considered that the appellant had not made a loan to a small business corporation but to an individual. ... This suggests that it was probably not prior to 1992 or 1993, as he mentioned at one point in his testimony, that the appellant realized that his debt had really become bad. [35] There will be a “créance irrécouvrable” (uncollectable debt) [3] in a taxation year if the appellant can prove that using his business judgment he considered during that year that he could not collect on the debt (see Picadilly Hotels Ltd. v. ...

He considered that the travel and promotion expenses were incurred by Cylindrix in order to carry out market appraisals over there. ... He considered that this amount was not used to purchase a building for Cylindrix but for the personal benefit of George Sidawi. ...

., 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. [27] There are thus four tests which the Tax Court of Canada can apply to decide whether it is entitled to intervene: the Minister (1) has not had regard to all the circumstances of the employment; (2) has considered irrelevant factors; (3) had acted in contravention of some principle of law; or (4) has based his decision on insufficient facts. [28] The Court went on as follows: In my view, the respondent’s position is correct in law except that it does not indicate what powers the Court enjoys once an intervention is deemed to be justified. ...

  [8]               The facts on which the Minister relied in thus confirming the assessments in the CPP case (2011-689(CPP)) are set out in paragraph 9 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal as follows:   (a)                 the Appellant was in the business of cleaning commercial properties; (admitted) (b)                the Appellant obtained the clients (hereinafter “the Client”); (denied) (c)                 the share structure of the Appellant, in January 2006, was as follows: Ansar         25% Connie       25% Kary          25% Denise        25%  (admitted) (d)                the share structure of the Appellant changed in mid 2006 to: Ansar         50% Connie       50%  (admitted) (e)                 the Workers were hired as labourers and their duties included cleaning, mopping, sweeping, dusting, wiping, vacuuming and garbage collection;  (denied) (f)                  the Workers did not enter in a written contract with the Appellant; (admitted) (g)                 the Workers performed their services at the Client’s premises; (admitted) (h)                 the Workers were hired on a continuous basis; (denied) (i)                   the Appellant paid the Workers on a monthly basis; (denied) (j)                  the Appellant determined the Workers’ wage rates; (denied) (k)                the Workers did not bid for work; (admitted) (l)                   the Workers did not invoice the Appellant; (admitted) (m)               the Appellant set the Workers’ hours of work; (denied) (n)                 the Workers worked during the “off hours” of the Client’s business; (admitted) (o)                the Workers worked whatever hours were required to complete the work; (admitted) (p)                the Appellant retained the right to control the Workers; (denied) (q)                the Appellant trained the Workers; (admitted) (r)                  the Workers did not have specific licenses, certifications or designations relating to the job; (admitted) (s)                 the Appellant instructed the Workers on the work to be done and the duties to be performed; (admitted) (t)                  the Appellant reviewed the Workers’ work; (denied) (u)                 some of the Workers worked in groups; (admitted) (v)                 the Appellant, through it’s agreement with the Client, established the Workers’ priorities and deadlines; (admitted) (w)               the Workers represented the Appellant while performing their services; (admitted) (x)                 the Workers could not hire their own helpers or replace themselves; (denied) (y)                 the Client provided all of the tools and equipment required; (admitted) (z)                 the Workers did not provide any tools or equipment; (denied) (aa)             the Client provided all of the supplies required; (admitted) (bb)            the Workers did not incur any expenses in the performance of their duties; (admitted) (cc)             the Workers did not provide their own liability insurance; (admitted) (dd)            the Workers did not incur any capital costs of a business; (admitted) (ee)             the Workers did not have a chance of profit or a risk of loss; (admitted) (ff)                the Workers did not present themselves as their own business presence; (denied) (gg)             the service performed by the Workers was for the benefit of the Appellant; (denied) (hh)             the Workers did not work for others while performing services for the Appellant; (denied) (ii)                 some Workers considered themselves to be employees while performing services for the Appellant; (denied)   (jj)                the Workers were not in business for themselves while performing services for the Appellant; (denied) (kk)            the Appellant withheld and remitted payroll deductions for part of the 2006 year; (denied) (ll)                 the Appellant’s income tax return included the following expenses: (denied)     2006 2007 Salaries and wages $16,754 $17,584 Management salaries $44,000 $16,000   (mm)         wages paid by the Appellant to the Workers, for the period January 1, 2006 to January 31, 2009, were as follows:   (denied)     2006 2007 2008 2009 Ansar $4,250 16,000     Connie $4,250       Denise $17,750       Kary $17,750       Mora $4,500 $2,837     Pierre-Antoine $12,246 $6,839 $6,540 $627 Khan   $458     Gillani   $4,380     Yfate   $787       [9]               By Notice of Assessment dated June 5, 2009, the Appellant was assessed for, among other things, employment insurance premiums in the amount of $619.34 for 2007, in respect of Michael Dagnew (hereinafter “Dagnew”), Gillani, Khan, Gibran Khan (hereinafter “Gibran”), Mora, Pierre‑Antoine and Yfate ...   [14]          The facts on which the Minister relied in thus confirming the assessments for 2007, 2008 and 2009 are set out in paragraph 7 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal as follows:   (a)                 the Appellant was in the business of cleaning commercial properties; (admitted) (b)                the Appellant obtained the clients (hereinafter “the Client”); (denied) (c)                 the share structure of the Appellant, in January 2006, was as follows: Ansar Bacchus       25% Connie Bacchus      25% Kary McLeod        25% Denise McLeod      25% (admitted) (d)                the share structure of the Appellant changed in mid 2006 to: Ansar Bacchus       50% Connie Bacchus      50% (admitted) (e)                 the Workers were hired as labourers and their duties included cleaning, mopping, sweeping, dusting, wiping, vacuuming and garbage collection; (denied) (f)                  the workers did not enter in a written contract with the Appellant; (admitted) (g)                 the Workers performed their services at the Client’s premises; (admitted) (h)                 the Workers were hired on a continuous basis; (denied) (i)                   the Appellant paid the Workers on a monthly basis; (denied) (j)                  the Appellant determined the Workers’ wage rates; (denied) (k)                the Workers did not bid for work; (admitted) (l)                   the Workers did not invoice the Appellant; (admitted) (m)               the Appellant set the Workers’ hours of work; (denied) (n)                 the Workers worked during the “off hours” of the Client’s business; (admitted) (o)                the Workers worked whatever hours were required to complete the work; (admitted) (p)                the Appellant retained the right to control the Workers; (denied) (q)                the Appellant trained the Workers; (admitted) (r)                  the Workers did not have specific licenses, certifications or designations relating to the job; (admitted) (s)                 the Appellant instructed the Workers on the work to be done and the duties to be performed; (admitted) (t)                  the Appellant reviewed the Workers’ work; (denied) (u)                 some of the Workers worked in groups; (admitted) (v)                 the Appellant, through it’s agreement with the Client, established the Workers’ priorities and deadlines; (admitted) (w)               the Workers represented the Appellant while performing their services; (admitted) (x)                 the Workers could not hire their own helpers or replace themselves; (denied) (y)                 the Client provided all of the tools and equipment required; (admitted) (z)                 the Workers did not provide any tools or equipment; (denied) (aa)             the Client provided all of the supplies required; (admitted) (bb)            the Workers did not incur any expenses in the performance of their duties; (denied) (cc)             the Workers did not provide their own liability insurance; (admitted) (dd)            the Workers did not incur any capital costs of a business;   (admitted) (ee)             the Workers did not have a chance of profit or a risk of loss; (admitted) (ff)                the Workers did not present themselves as their own business presence; (denied) (gg)             the service performed by the Workers was for the benefit of the Appellant; (denied) (hh)             the Workers did not work for others while performing services for the Appellant; (denied) (ii)                 some Workers considered themselves to be employees while performing services for the Appellant; (denied) (jj)                the Workers were not in business for themselves while performing services for the Appellant; (denied) (kk)            the Appellant withheld and remitted payroll deductions for part of the 2006 year; (denied) (ll)                 the Appellant’s income tax return included the following expenses: (denied)     2006 2007 Salaries and wages $16,754 $17,584 Management salaries $44,000 $16,000         Item (mm) continues on the next page.         ...

These circumstances must be taken into account, but must be considered against an objective "reasonably prudent person" standard. …   …   [52] Parliament did not require that directors be subject to an absolute liability for the remittances of their corporations. ... Justice Rothstein considered it relevant to note in his concurring reasons in McKinnon, supra:   1 ...

Similarly, an objection filed after the tax return is assessed cannot be considered to meet the requirement that the taxpayer choose in his or her tax return. ... The election required under this transitional rule was considered in Anderson v. ...

"   [7]               To determine whether a proposed additional portion of discovery evidence should be allowed in because it “qualifies or explains” pursuant to subsection 100(3) of the Rules, Chief Justice Rip, at paragraph 4, summarized the factors he considered as follows:   •         continuity of thought or subject-matter;   •        the purpose of introducing the evidence in the first instance and whether it can stand on its own; and   •        fairness in the sense that the evidence should, so far as possible, represent the complete answer of the witness on the subject-matter of the inquiry so far as the witness has expressed it in the answers he has given on his examination for discovery ... I think that they considered that that increased their security, being a community-driven congregation. 396 Q. ...

  [4]              Therefore, the only issue is the following: were the salaries of Pierre Trudeau and his spouse Louise Nadon considered eligible expenditures? ...   [21]         The appellant repeatedly insisted during the examination by the respondent's representatives that they should have considered the prior records where the president and his spouse's salaries were fully allowed, in particular for 2003 and 2004 ...