Search - considered

As a result, the employment of each worker was insurable employment for the purposes of the Act. [3]   In making his decisions, the Minister considered the following facts in paragraph 16 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal: (a) the appellant is an incorporated entity; (b) the appellant operates a PVC window and door sale and manufacturing business; (c) during the period at issue, 9073-3965 Québec Inc. held and controlled all of the appellant’s voting shares; (d) during the period at issue, Josée Bilodeau held and controlled all the voting shares of 9073‑3965 Québec Inc.; (e) Josée Bilodeau is the mother of the workers; (f) the appellant had six directors responsible for: (i) Sales; (ii) Field sales; (iii) The two factories; (iv) Purchasing; (v) Shipping; and (vi) Human Resources; (g) Bianca Dupuis was the Purchasing Director; (h) Bianca Dupuis looked after: (i) sales customer service; (ii)   price changes; (iii)   marketing brochures; and (iv)   the computer system; (i) Catherine Dupuis was Director of Human Resources; (j) Catherine Dupuis looked after: (i) hiring and terminations; (ii)   employee complaints; (iii)   training; (iv)   health and safety; and (v)   social events; (k)   Jonathan Dupuis was the Director of the appellants’ two factories; (l)   Jonathan Dupuis looked after: (i)   purchasing machinery and trucks; (ii)   product research and development; (iii)   supervising team leaders; and (iv)   replacing missing staff; (m)   Samuel Dupuis was: (i)   a day labourer until August 2016; then (ii)   replacement team leader since August 2016; (n)   As a day labourer, Samuel Dupuis worked on the door and window assembly line; (o)   As a replacement team leader, Samuel Dupuis supervised 10 to 15 employees working in one of the appellant’s two factories; (p)   the appellant remunerated the workers by direct deposit for services rendered; (q)   the appellant made deductions at source from the workers’ pay; (r)   the workers met regularly with Josée Bilodeau to discuss work; (s)   the appellant retained her right of supervision; (t)   the appellant issued T4 slips to the workers; (u)   the workers were paid at different hourly rates depending on their position and seniority; (v)   workers were paid overtime when they worked more than 40 hours a week; (w)   during part of the period at issue, Jonathan Dupuis was paid a fixed weekly salary; (x)   while Jonathan Dupuis was paid a fixed weekly salary, the additional hours he worked were banked and converted to leave; (y)   the appellant paid the workers annual bonuses because they performed additional duties; (z)   with the bonuses they received, the workers’ salaries were in line with the market average; (aa)   the workers had not completed post-secondary studies; (bb)   the workers gained experience over the years, working for the appellant; (cc)   the workers completed timesheets, as did the other employees working for the appellant; (dd)   the workers were covered by the appellant’s group insurance, as were the other employees working for the appellant; (ee)   the workers accrued vacation days based on their seniority; (ff)   the workers worked for the appellant full-time for several years; (gg)   as experienced, reliable and responsible workers, they had a somewhat flexible work schedule; (hh)   as persons working in management positions, the workers worked a few hours without asking for remuneration; (ii)   the workers mostly worked in the appellant’s place of business; (jj)   as workers in management positions and/or workers who did not have to use heavy equipment, they worked a little from home; (kk)   the appellant paid for certain expenses when the workers worked outside the area; (ll)   the appellant operated year‑round; (mm)   the workers were hired year‑round; (nn)   the duties performed by the workers were essential to the appellant’s activities; and (oo)   none of the workers received extravagant or overly generous terms of employment, based on their position in the company. [4]   At the hearing, the agent for the appellant admitted that a contract of service existed between the appellant and each worker. ... “The Tax Court is justified in interfering with the Minister’s determination under subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii) “by proceeding to review the merits of the Minister’s determination” where it is established that the Minister: (i) acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose or motive; (ii) failed to take into account all of the relevant circumstances, as expressly required by paragraph 3(2)(c)(ii); or (iii) took into account an irrelevant factor...” [27]   In this case, the question to be asked is whether the Minister has considered all the relevant circumstances as required under paragraph 5(3)(b) of the Act and whether the Minister’s decision was reasonable under the circumstances. [28]   In his argument, the agent for the appellant cited the following criteria that exclude the workers’ jobs from insurable employment:- the workers’ salaries were not based on the hours actually worked, but on the personal needs of each worker;- bonuses paid to the workers were not tied to performance;- absence of fixed hours of work; the workers worked 30 to 82 hours a week, evenings, nights or weekends. ...

There are many cases in which the matter has been considered both in this court and the Federal Court of Appeal. ... The question is whether, considered in context of the law and the litigation process, the claim has no reasonable chance of succeeding.” [32]   More recently, this Court applied the plain and obvious test in Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. ...

Her Majesty the Queen (1986), 7 FTR 3, are often cited for the factors to be considered. [8]   The Supreme Court of Canada took the list of factors in the Minister of National Revenue’s bulletin IT-218R and restated most of them at paragraph 17 of Friesen as follows: (i) The taxpayer’s intention with respect to the real estate at the time of purchase and the feasibility of that intention and the extent to which it was carried out. ... The more closely a taxpayer’s business or occupation is related to real estate transactions, the more likely it is that the income will be considered business income rather than capital gain. ...

Until the Judgment, most jurisprudence dealt with revocation of a registered charity’s registration, whereas the present case considered a suspension of receipting privileges and qualified-donee status under subsection 188.2(2) of the Act and consideration of the consequence imposed in the context of the graduated step approach. [13]   I find that this factor favours an appropriate award of costs in favour of the respondent and would justify an increase over Tariff. ... Conclusion [27]   I have carefully considered each of the factors above. ...

The Court considered the appellant’s advertising and invoicing documents to determine the legal character of the income. ... I have considered each below in addition to the testimony provided by Mr. ...

Although Cattanach J. expressed the caution that his words did not constitute an “exact” definition, the extent to which his words have been adopted in the jurisprudence without change over some thirty years suggests that his approach, although not necessarily exhaustive, is now considered to be the working definition. [13] [22]   In Klotz v. ... Sackman, 2008 FCA 177, the Federal Court of Appeal observed at paragraph 6: This Court has twice considered similar appeals involving the fair market value of prints purchased and donated by taxpayers through promoters such as Artistic (see Klotz v. ...

Her Majesty the Queen, 2007 FCA 86, the Federal Court of Appeal set out the factors that are usually considered in motions for an extension of time, namely: (a) the continuing intention to pursue the appeal; (b) that the appeal has some merit; (c) that no prejudice to the respondent arises from the delay; (d) that a reasonable explanation is given for the delay. [38]   The facts to be considered in a motion of this nature must establish a continuing intention to pursue the appeal. ...

Issues: [3]   In appealing these redeterminations the Appellant identified in his Notice of Appeal that the Minister had wrongly considered an Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Order dated April 1, 2015. ... In the lead-up to the hearing there was to my knowledge no attempt by the Respondent to amend the Reply so that it would fully and specifically set out the factual assumptions underpinning the appealed redeterminations so as to clearly show why the Appellant was no longer considered the parent primarily responsible for care and upbringing of the dependent, JCW.   ...

These factors do support the fact that he may have also been a resident in Ethiopia in 2013. [50]   The fact that an individual is a resident of another country does not mean that he or she cannot also be considered a resident of Canada (a dual resident).The case law is clear that a party can be a resident in two places at the same time. ... He stated, in the course of his decision, that the ground retained by the Minister was not conclusive, in itself, but that he found that it became conclusive when considered with the other evidence filed, in large part, by the appellant herself. [2] Paragraph 25 of the Notice of Appeal states that this apartment was rented so that the Appellant would have a place to stay when he visited Canada. ...

He argues that the appropriate sections to be considered are subsections 15(1); 15(5); 6(1); paragraph 6(1)(e); subsections 6(2) and 6(2.2); and paragraphs 6(1)(a) and 6(2)(b). ... The general rules of evidence, including credibility, must be considered by the Court in determining the answers to the questions. ...