Search - considered

Cambridge is to be considered related to Skimmer (from October 1992), Western Oil (from June 1996), Disposal Wells (from June 1996) and 731059 (from March 1997) for the purposes of the Act and for the purposes of this appeal. [5]            An outline of facts in dispute is contained in the following assumptions from the Reply to the Notice of Appeal which were not refuted by the evidence. ...

However, if Counsel for the Respondent had wanted a reopening of the hearing to question some of the most relevant documents, in particular those in respect of the sale of the hair salon on August 28, 1994, he could have asked for it and I could have considered the request favourably. [20]          It is my view that the Appellant come within the purview of subsection 20.1(2) of the Act and that he is entitled to deduct the payments made on the portion of the borrowed money outstanding at any time after August 21, 1994, that is not deemed by paragraph 20.1(2)(a) of the Act to have been used before that subsequent time to acquire property. ...

The Queen [8] and the Appellant's position must be rejected. [7]            Furthermore, relying on the definition of "child support amount" in subsection 56.1(4) of the Income Tax Act, counsel for the Respondent also argued that the amount of $10,300 deducted by the Appellant, if considered to be a support payment, is captured under paragraph 60(b) of the Act. ...

No wonder doctors may be confused and presumably why, in this case, a doctor says there is no marked restriction in one place and says the marked restriction has continued for more than 12 months in another place. [7]            The relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act are subsections 118.3(1) and 118.4(1) as follows: 118.3(1) Where (a)            an individual has a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment, (a.1)         the effects of the impairment are such that the individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted, (a.2) in the case of (i)             a sight impairment, a medical doctor or an optometrist, (ii)            a hearing impairment, a medical doctor or an audiologist, (iii)           an impairment with respect to an individual's ability in feeding and dressing themself, or in walking, a medical doctor or an occupational therapist, (iv)           an impairment with respect to an individual's ability in perceiving, thinking and remembering, a medical doctor or a psychologist, and (v)            an impairment not referred to in any of subparagraphs (i) to (iv), a medical doctor has certified in prescribed form that the impairment is a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment the effects of which are such that the individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted, (b)            the individual has filed for a taxation year with the Minister the certificate described in paragraph (a.2), and (c)           ... 118.4(1)                   For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a)            an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or can reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b)            an individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c)            a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i)             perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii)            feeding and dressing oneself, (iii)           speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv)           hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v)            eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi)           walking; and (d)            for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. [8]            Section 118.3 of the Act lists three requirements to claim a disability tax credit: (a) the individual must have a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment; (b) the effects of the impairment are such that her ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted; and (c) she must provide a doctor's certificate certifying (a) and (b). ...

They tried to explain the origin of some of the funds the respondent had considered to be income, but the explanations were inconsistent and above all contradictory ...

., when can two persons be considered to be living in a conjugal relationship. [17]          A very useful analysis of the meaning of a conjugal relationship can be found in the decision of my colleague Lamarre Proulx, J. in Sylvie Milot v. ...

The following subparagraphs and excerpts as modified later herein are:... b)             during 1987 and part of 1988, the Appellant, a lawyer, was employed by Burns Fry as a stockbroker; c)              as the Appellant had not filed tax returns for her 1986, 1987 and 1988 taxation years and following no response to the request from the Minister with respect to filing returns of income for those years, the Department of National Revenue prepared pro-forma tax returns for the 3 years and in so doing, it raised assessments dated November 14, 1990 pursuant to subsection 152(7) of the Act; d)             the Appellant's main income for the 1988 taxation year was T4 employment income from Burns Fry in the amount of $42,725; e)              in filing Notices of Objection on January 21, 1991 with respect to the 1986, 1987 and 1988 taxation years, the Appellant claimed that she had excessive losses in her personal trading account and these losses should be allowed for each of the 1986, 1987 and 1988 taxation years; f)              in 1991, the Appellant filed amended returns of income for the 1986, 1987 and 1988 taxation years; g)             with respect to the 1988 taxation year, the Appellant claimed a business loss of $75,985 as a result of personal stock trades made in her personal account with Burns Fry and carrying charges of $10,000; h)             during the course of reviewing the Notices of Objection, the Revenue Canada Appeals Officer obtained the Appellant's personal trading account statements from Burns Fry; i)               following a reviewing of the broker statements with the Appellant and her representative concurrent, Notices of Reassessments dated October 13, 1992, were issued allowing, in part, the objections with respect to the 1986, 1987 and 1988 taxation years; j)               Specifically, with respect to the 1988 taxation year, business-trading losses in the amount of $300,459 were allowed; carrying changes were allowed; and changes were made to interest income; k)              the 1988 adjustments resulted in non-capital losses of $261,529; l)               in 1991, two articles appeared in Toronto newspapers stating that the Investors Dealers Association of Canada ("IDA") banned the Appellant for working as a stockbroker for life as a result of her misappropriating funds from clients' accounts, falsifying documents and making trades, without her clients' consent; m)             consequently, a further review of the Appellant's 1988 tax return was undertaken by officials of the Department of National Revenue (now known as Canada Customs and Revenue Agency), (the "Agency"); n)             the Agency served a Requirement on Burns Fry and the Agency learned that from October 1987 to May 1988, the Appellant removed a total of $320,000 from the trading accounts of two clients; the Appellant requisitioned cheques from Burns Fry, payable to either one of the two clients, forged the signatures as the client payee and deposited the cheques into her personal banking account; the Appellant then wrote cheques from her personal bank account to either her personal trading account with Burns Fry to cover trading activities in her account or she deposited the amounts to clients' accounts to cover authorization transactions that the Appellant put through without the clients' knowledge; o)             of the amount misappropriated, Burns Fry provided Agency officials with information that occurred between March 1988 and April 1988, totalling $270,000; p)             from the total of $270,000, Agency officials traced an amount of $209,000 as credits to the Appellant's personal trading account and $30,977 to the Appellant's personal bank account;... s)              during the Appellant's contacts with Agency officials, she failed to disclose the misappropriation of funds; t)              the misappropriated funds were used by the Appellant as the source of funds for the Appellant's personal trades; u)             the misappropriated funds should have been evident to the Appellant from a review of the statements of her personal trading account and, or, a review of her personal bank account statements; v)             the amount of the misappropriated funds was significant when compared to the Appellant's T4 income in 1988 of $42,725; w)             the Appellant had direct knowledge of the funds misappropriated and as a lawyer, the Appellant should have been aware that such amounts are considered taxable income; and... ...

In 1997, the Appellant performed 31 church services at various churches, as well as teaching Sunday school in the Church that he is a member of but not the pastor. [19]          When the Appellant was asked whether he would consider that preaching a series of sermons on a particular subject would be considered teaching, this question was answered in the negative. ...

In so doing, he excluded from the taxable supplies the amounts that were proven to be transfers from one account to another. [5]            The appellant submits that some amounts indicated in Exhibits A-5, A-6 and A-8 as withdrawals from the U.S. dollar account and deposits in the Canadian dollar account, or vice versa, on the same day were erroneously considered not to be proven transfers and were therefore included twice by the Minister as taxable supplies. ...

It does not mean efforts to provide one's self with subsistence only, as the appellant contemplates, or an activity that creates some revenue, but not a profit, but at which the taxpayer devotes all of his mental and physical energies. [16]          Indeed, in Tonn [3] and Mastri [4] the Federal Court of Appeal considered the personal element of expenses in considering whether the expenses were incurred to produce income from a business or property. ...