Search - considered

(h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing; [11]Section 6302 of the Regulations establishes the factors used in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant. For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant: (a) the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant; (b) the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides; (c) the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant; (d) the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant; (e) the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person; (f) the attendance to the hygienic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis; (g) the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and (h) the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides. [12]     The onus is on the Appellant to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that she is eligible for the Canada Child Tax Benefit and that she meets the conditions set forth in the definition. ... Even if the Appellant was with her children regularly and they visited her often, the children still continued to live in the family home on a permanent basis. [14]     Since the Appellant does not meet the first condition set forth in the Act, it is not necessary to review the question of responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant, which the Appellant must fulfill in order to be considered the eligible individual. ...

[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION] REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Lamarre Proulx J. [1]      This is an appeal from an assessment established under the Excise Tax Act (the "Act"). [2]      The issue is whether renovations made to a condominium ("condo") are considered "substantial renovations" within the meaning of the expression in subsection 123(1) of the Act. ... The first elements considered in this assessment such as core plumbing, insulation, core electricity, core heating, exterior doors and windows, the basement floor and finishing on the heating system are not appropriate to assessing the percentage of renovations of a property that is a condo. ... However, I did not see in the correspondence that the Appellant was asked for such documents. [14]     On the ground that the assessment grid took irrelevant elements into consideration in assessing the percentage of renovations and having heard the Appellant's description of the work done and the amounts spent, I feel that these could be considered substantial renovations within the meaning of the definition at subsection 123(1) of the Act. [15]     As a result, the appeal is allowed. ...

  [8]    The Quebec Court of Appeal considered the effect of a modification of an agreement for alimentary position in M.N.K. c. ... Obviously, there is no way to vary something that is entirely unknown for the moment (in the case at bar, the judgment which, after coming before the Court of Appeal, will be considered the original judgment concerning the allowance.) ... To the extent that it made a determination respecting an uncertain future, the judgment fixing the allowance is in some way a conditional judgment (it is unimportant whether the condition is considered suspensive or resolutory) which will only be lawful so long as the circumstances of the parties have not changed. ...

That he considered himself to be obligated to pay as long as she was in school is shown by his having paid all amounts due under the Separation Agreement, even after Adrienne's 21 st birthday. ... CHILD SUPPORT: 3.1 The husband shall pay to the wife for the financial support of the child, Adrienne Dawn Werby, born June 28, 1979 the sum of $200.00 per week, starting on December 8, 1995, until one or more of the following occurs: (a) the child stops living full time with the wife, and "living full time" includes the child living away from home to attend an educational institution, pursue summer employment or enjoy a vacation but otherwise maintaining a residence with the wife; (b) the child becomes 18 years old and ceases to be in full time attendance at an educational institution; (c) the child becomes 21 years old; (d) the child completes an undergraduate degree; (e) the child obtains full time employment; (f) the child marries; or (g) the child dies. 3.2 Adrienne Dawn Werby is eligible for support and maintenance in spite of the fact that she may be receiving income from some part time or vacation employment provided that she is in normal full time attendance at a university, college or accredited institution of learning. 3.3 Payments shall begin when and if Adrienne Dawn Werby, after ceasing normal full time attendance at a university, college or accredited institution of learning, resumes full time attendance. 3.4 Adrienne is considered to be living with the wife even if she has a separate residence from the wife as long as she is in normal full time attendance at a university, college or accredited institution of learning unless she is living with the husband. 3.5 Payments shall recommence when and if Adrienne, after ceasing to live with the wife starts living again with the wife. 4.          ... Those support payments shall be deemed deductible by the husband as periodic payments on his 1995 tax return and includable by the wife on the calculation of her income for tax purposes for 1995 and shall be considered as paid and received under the provisions of subsection 56.1 and 60.1 of the Income Tax Act (Canada), as amended. 5.          ...

M.N.R. [5] are factors to be considered." These four factors are: (1) control; (2) ownership of the tools; (3) chance of profit; (4) risk of loss. [8]      In presenting argument on behalf of his wife, Mr. ... While this in itself would not be sufficient to establish her status as an independent contractor, when considered with all of the other evidence, it becomes significant. ... No. 771 (F.C.A.) [5] [1986] 2 C.T.C. 200 (F.C.A.) [6] See the following cases which considered similar facts: Arseneau v. ...

(denied)   (n)        When establishing the insurable hours, the Minister considered that the hours actually worked and for which the Appellant was paid totalled 282.75 hours: (denied)                 Period of 7/5/01 to 2/7/01:       182.75 hours             Period of 3/7/01 to 30/11/01:   100.00 hours             Total:                                        282.75 hours   (o)        In establishing the insurable earnings, the Minister added $1,000 to the amounts indicated in the three records of employment the Payor issued, for $2,140.92. ... Section 9.1 of the Employment Insurance Regulations states:               Where a person's earnings are paid on an hourly basis, the person is considered to have worked in insurable employment for the number or hours that the person actually worked and for which the person was remunerated ...   [12]     In determining this case, the following, from subsection 2(2) of the Insurable Earnings and Collection of Premiums Regulations must be considered:   …the total amount of earnings that an insured person has…except for any unpaid amount that is in respect of overtime or that would have been paid by reason of termination of the employment ...

Thibault, the tax was paid out of the ticket price because he considered it as having been collected. ... He considered that, at that time, the tax no longer had any relation to the price of the tickets. [7]      The respondent produced the two objections officers responsible for the case: Alain Therrien and Dany Lévesque. ... The issue of admissions being exempt from tax never arose. [8]      Dany Lévesque testified that, for the purposes of the assessments, he had considered only the input tax credits and had wondered whether the appellant was entitled to them. ...

The problem has often been considered in actions brought under s. 4(1)(e)(i) of the Divorce Act and, generally speaking, a finding that the parties were living separate and apart from each other has been made where the following circumstances were present: (i)          Spouses occupying separate bedrooms. ... I do not consider that separate finances before, during and after separation and coverage of the husband under the health care plan of the Appellant were sufficient factors to alter the foregoing conclusion. [14]     Consequently since they were considered to be living separate and apart, the Appellant was entitled to the Child Tax Benefit Credit claimed as well as the Goods and Services Tax Credit claimed. Those credits are not to be reduced because of Roger's income. [15]     Further, in my opinion, the Appellant was entitled to the deduction for a wholly dependent person under paragraph 118(1)(b) since she was a person who was married and who neither supported nor lived with her husband (since they were considered to be living separate and apart) and she was not supported by her spouse and moreover she, jointly with her husband, maintained a self-contained domestic establishment (in which she lived) and actually supported in that establishment a person who at that time was her child, namely, Stephen, who was under the age of 18. [16]     For all of the above reasons the appeals are allowed, without costs.           ...

., [2003] 2 C.T.C. 2363 (T.C.C.) considered the inconsistencies in prior cases. ... Justice Bowie's reasoning, with which I agree, is as follows: [6]         I accept that the concluding words of paragraph 118.2(2)(n) of the Act, considered in its context as part of a series of provisions designed to provide a measure of relief from the burden of income tax to people who suffer, or as in this case whose dependants suffer, from illness, is capable of more than one meaning. ... It is not necessary, however, for me to decide whether Judges Teskey and Miller were correct in their conclusion that a sale by a pharmacy is all that is required to satisfy paragraph (n); I am unable to find that a purchase which does not involve a pharmacy or a pharmacist can qualify. [15]     There remains to be considered Ms. ...

It is not disputed that the Appellant failed to maintain a mileage log in respect of either vehicle and during a meeting with a Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) assessor estimated that he drove approximately 40,000 kilometres per year of which 21,000 (or 53%) was considered by the assessor to be business-related. [10]     The Appellant resided in or near Entwistle some 40 kilometres north of Drayton Valley (Drayton) which was Brandette's base. He testified that there is no dispute that when he drove to Drayton and "from there out to a lease" the travel from Drayton to his home was properly considered as personal use of the vehicle. ... Notwithstanding this the trips were considered by CCRA as personal, that is home to work. ...