Search - considered

. […]        (3) In exercising its discretionary power pursuant to subsection (1) the Court may consider, (a) the result of the proceeding, (b) the amounts in issue, (c) the importance of the issues, (d) any offer of settlement made in writing, (e) the volume of work, (f) the complexity of the issues, (g) the conduct of any party that tended to shorten or to lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding, (h) the denial or the neglect or refusal of any party to admit anything that should have been admitted, (i) whether any stage in the proceedings was, (i) improper, vexatious, or unnecessary, or (ii) taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution, (i.1) whether the expense required to have an expert witness give evidence was justified given (i) the nature of the proceeding, its public significance and any need to clarify the law, (ii) the number, complexity or technical nature of the issues in dispute, or (iii) the amount in dispute; and (j) any other matter relevant to the question of costs. [6]              Although a settlement offer is only one of the factors to be considered under Rule 147(3), it has gained significant importance where the Court is considering an award of solicitor/client costs. ...

The problem that he cannot surmount is that, with respect to a debt, the holder of the right that could be considered property is the creditor. ...

The Appellant opposed the motion. [4]              I allowed the Amended Reply to be filed and, in so doing, I considered the following: a)      The Appellant was represented by counsel; b)     Counsel for the Respondent forwarded the Amended Reply to Appellant’s counsel on October 7, 2015 which was 20 days prior to the hearing; c)      The proposed amendments did not raise a new argument; and d)     The proposed amendments did not raise a new section of the Excise Tax Act (“ ETA ”) or the New Harmonized Value-Added Tax System Regulations, No. 2 (the “Regulations”). ...

The Toronto office of the Ministère du Revenu du Québec cannot be considered a special work site, being a location at which the duties performed by the appellant were of a temporary nature. ...

I was asked to provide written reasons for my decision. [2]              The evidence considered at the hearing consisted of an Affidavit by Mr.  ...

The second part of the expanded definition does not apply to the matter being considered herein. [14]         The case law instructs us that, when evaluating an activity that may be conducted for personal reasons, the Court must apply objective factors to determine whether the activity is, for example, a hobby, or whether it constitutes a business. [3] These factors include the taxpayer’s profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer’s training, the taxpayer’s intended course of action, and the capability of the venture to show a profit. [4] This list is not exhaustive. [15]         The Appellant’s evidence fell well short of the mark with respect to those factors. ...

Lefrançois. [29]         Given the inconsistencies in the explanations provided by the appellant and by her father and given the lack of tangible evidence that the appellant had advanced to her father the amounts totalling $358,649.76, I cannot agree that the amount of $20,000 may be considered as the repayment of an excess amount of the actual construction cost of the immovable located at 26 Bourget Street. [30]         For all these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. ...

  [22]         Given my finding that the Appellant and D would have been living together during the period at issue were it not for the unforeseen death of the Appellant’s wife, I conclude that the Appellant and D can be considered as having constructively resided together from August 2011 through June 2012. ...

These circumstances must be taken into account, but must be considered against an objective “reasonably prudent person” standard.   ...

Each of the reporting periods will be considered below.   Period from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2005   [14]         Pursuant to section 306 of the Act, a taxpayer may institute an appeal to this Court with respect to an assessment, but only if the taxpayer has previously served a notice of objection ...