Search - considered

It is the Appellant’s position that the Minister can only make such a determination if the related employee wishes to be considered an insurable person under the Act. The Minister cannot make the determination if the related employee does not wish to be considered an insurable person under the Act. [36]         Counsel for the Appellant argued that this is consistent with the scheme of the Act and would not result in employees abusing the system since only employees who pay premiums can collect benefits. [37]         Paragraph 90(1)(a) allows an employee, an employer and the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (the “Commission”) to request an officer of the CRA authorized by the Minister to make a ruling on whether an employment is insurable. [38]         Under paragraph 5(1)(a), insurable employment is employment in Canada under an express or implied contract of service, written or oral. ...

  [7]              In support of its claims, the appellant relies on many elements that were not considered by the Minister, including the establishment profile, i.e.:   —    restaurant is in a single-purpose building; —    main clientele is made up of high school students; —    busy periods are from September to December and from April to June; —    restaurant capacity is 52 seats; —    the building is old and in need of repairs and renovations; —    the restaurant is not part of the Belle Province chain; and —    a competing restaurant, McDonald's, is nearby.   ... As a result, purchases of sliced bread were not considered.   [21]         The auditor also confirmed that the appellant did not provide purchase invoices from its suppliers. ...

Regrettably, this fact was either not considered or not brought to Mattamy’s attention as an impediment to you receiving the rebate at time of closing. ... Sharp and her parents should be considered in the same light, as being home buyers for whom the rebate is intended. ...

As noted in Royal Winnipeg Ballet at para. 64, the relevant factors must be considered “in the light of” the parties’ intent. ... The reply to the notice of appeal states that the Minister assumed that the worker considered himself to be an employee. [23]         Based on the testimony before me, I am satisfied that the worker was aware of the fact that the appellant intended a self-employment arrangement. [24]         The Minister also included in the assumptions that the worker reported what he received from the appellant as “other employment income” on his 2010 income tax return and that the worker did not claim any expenses in his return. ...

The appellant and the Secretariat considered the appellant’s appointment as a member of the Committee to not be insurable. [7]              The Committee members are appointed by the Treasury Board through an Order in Council on the recommendation of the Treasury Board President. ... No. 1643 (QL), [1998] 1 C.T.C. 2453 (T.C.C.). [24]         My learned colleague, Justice Hershfield, considered the same argument in Nuclear Waste Management Organization v. ...

Accordingly, the relationship between the parties must be considered in light of the rules of the Civil Code of Québec, not the tests developed under the common law. ... These slips being common knowledge to Canadian workers, the appellant could easily have required the payer to provide her with copies of the T4slips for tax purposes each year if she had truly intended to work as an employee rather than wait until near the end of her contract with the payer. [37]         The factors to be considered when determining whether or not a person was self-employed are set out in Wiebe Door Services v. ...

There is no dispute between the parties that loans or indebtedness owing by the transferor to a transferee can be considered consideration paid for a transfer for the purposes of subsection 325(1). ... The fact the Appellant’s husband testified he should have contributed but did not, over such a lengthy period of time, without the Appellant having taken any action on the matters suggests the Appellant did not treat these as loans nor considered herself deprived in any way. ...

  [18]         Logically, if “all or nothing offer” offers to settle are not to be considered at all, then it is never open to either a respondent or an appellant in any tax court matter to utilize an offer to settle with costs consequences where there is an all or nothing determination of liability.  ... If “all or nothing” offers can never be considered then the cost provisions related to offers of settlement are inapplicable in such circumstances even though there is no express preclusion in the General Rules. [19]         In order to ascribe some sense to the broad wording of Rules 147(3)(d) and 147(3.1), the issue is not whether an “all or nothing” settlement can or cannot be made with cost consequences.  ...

Issue estoppel has been considered in a number of cases and the principle which can be taken therefrom is that no representation involving an interpretation of law by a servant or officer of the Crown can bind it. ... Inland Industries Ltd., [(1971), 72 D.T.C. 6013 (S.C.C.), at 6017] the Supreme Court of Canada considered certain sections of the Income Tax Act respecting the deductibility of past service contributions to a pension plan initially accepted by the Department of National Revenue for registration but with respect of which deductions were later refused. ...

  [12]         The respondent further argues that it was “entirely reasonable” to test the evidence regarding the truck at trial since the respondent considered that Mr.  ... I do find, however, that the dispute resolution process was undermined through considered inaction. ...