Search - considered

Paragraph 21 reads as follows: [21] Counsel for the Respondent relied on a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in which Kiteley J. considered a rule similar to our Rule 170.1:  Treats Inc. v. ... Canada [31] decision, the FCA cautioned that “[c]are must be taken not to import the pronouncements in Hryniak uncritically, thereby improperly amending” the subject matter of rules of the courts. [32] This Court believes that i t is in this light that Hryniak must be considered. ... To the Court’s knowledge, the courts have not yet determined whether, for the purpose of the application of the ETA, the constituent elements (services) of a supply made under a contract between a supplier of a service and a recipient could be considered as part of a single supply made to another recipient.   ...

It would be particularly troubling for Section 302 and Section 165(7) to have that effect when the reassessment or additional assessment results in an amended notice of appeal that raises new issues, statutory provisions, facts or arguments that need to be considered and addressed in the reply, [22] or, as in this case, where a change to the amount in dispute affects the procedure that governs the appeal. [46]   Section 165(7) and Section 302 provide procedural relief which must be distinguished from the substantive appeal rights. [23] The purpose of Section 302 and Section 165(7) is fulfilled without any need for an abridgement in timelines of the nature suggested by the Appellant. ... No provision of the TCC Act, the ETA IP Rules or the GP Rules addresses whether an amended notice of appeal filed in reliance of Section 302 is to be considered a notice of appeal in respect of the reassessment or additional assessment or an amended pleading for the appeal previously filed. ... Because the Appellant purported to elect to have the GP Rules apply in the Amended Notice of Appeal, [32] it seems unlikely that she would seek to make that election. [58]   In my view, the differences between the general and informal procedure rules regarding the form of notice of appeal and service of the notice of appeal further highlight why an amended notice of appeal filed pursuant to Section 302 should be considered an originating document for purposes of establishing the timelines for filing the reply. [59]   Under the GP Rules, the notice of appeal must be in Form 21(1)(a), which requires particular details including matters not required in a notice of appeal for an appeal governed by the informal procedure rules. ...

While a failure to inquire may be evidence of recklessness or criminal negligence, as for example, where a failure to inquire is a marked departure from the conduct expected of a reasonable person, wilful blindness is not simply a failure to inquire but, to repeat Professor Stuart’s words, “deliberate ignorance”. 50 The subjective nature of the wilful blindness standard also means that the personal attributes of the individual may be considered in determining whether the individual is wilfully blind. [40] Therefore, wilful blindness will be established if the respondent proves, on a balance of probabilities, that Mrs. ... The Queen, [17] this Court enumerated a number of circumstances that can be considered “red flags”: i) the magnitude of the advantage or omission; ii) the blatantness of the false statement and how readily detectable it is; iii) the lack of acknowledgment by the tax preparer who prepared the return in the return itself; iv) unusual requests made by the tax preparer; v) the tax preparer being previously unknown to the taxpayer; vi) incomprehensible explanations by the tax preparer; vii) whether others engaged the tax preparer or warned against doing so, or the taxpayer himself or herself expresses concern about telling others [42] These are only examples of circumstances that can be taken into consideration by the Court. ... It might well be that in some circumstances these situations can be considered “red flags”, but it is not the case here. ...

Thomson stated he never considered a trust agreement, letter of credit or other mechanism to ensure ability to pay the Part VIII tax liability but reiterated he felt the stock market investments, especially in Butler Mountain, would raise enough money to pay the tax bill. ... The liability of directors under Part VIII should be considered in a different light than the strict application of the due diligence required to ensure that source deductions of employees are remitted. ... M.N.R., [1992] 1 C.T.C. 2124, 92 D.T.C. 1066, The Honourable Judge Bonner of the Tax Court of Canada, considered the taxpayer's due diligence defence as a director of a corporation known as Atlantis and at pages 2126-27 (D.T.C. 1068) of his judgment stated: With regard to the failure of Atlantis to make the payment due under subsection 195(2) of the Act on or before the last day of December, 1984, the appellant testified that his understanding was that Part VIII tax was payable at or after the company’s year end and that if qualifying research was underway when the tax would otherwise have been due under subsection 195(2), the expenditures on such research would ultimately reduce the Part VIII tax liability. ...

Dubuc is support of the respondent’s position must first be considered. ... If it can be considered material, Mr. Barbeau’s testimony tends to show in particular that the T4s issued by Dunn & Benoît could have been substantially incorrect. If this evidence is considered on balance, it appears undeniable that certain employees did not receive brown envelopes and consequently part of their remuneration in cash. ...

He said there were 34 lots in the first stage or what he considered to be the first stage in the Castle Down area. ... They are significant, there is no question about that, and they do raise some questions with respect to credibility and they will have to be considered. ... Tessier, nothing more than a holding company in 1980 and 1981, and there is no provision in the Act to allow expenses in former years to be considered under section 67 and the expenses were not reasonable. ...

Further, he considered receivership. He said he was persuaded by Messrs. ... Subsequently, various arrangements were considered and payments made but some arrangements were not kept. ... After considering all the evidence, considering the credibility of the witnesses as I am entitled to do, having drawn all reasonable inferences from the evidence that I am able to do, and having made due allowance for the fallibility of memory, having due regard to the exhibit written resignation and the viva voce evidence of the appellant himself on the stand, and after rigorous cross- examination, having considered the argument of counsel of the respondent on the question of the correct date of resignation, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the appellant resigned as a director on August 5, 1987 in accordance with section 108(2) of the Canada Business Corporations Act, and he is not responsible for any deductions after that date. ...

EMC had its own comparable software product, IT Performance Reporter (ITPR), but APG was considered a more desirable product. [7] Prior to these transactions, all of the shares of W4N were controlled equally by Messrs. ... This is so even if the Balance Note issues are not considered. [3] Did such distribution or appropriation occur “on the winding-up, discontinuance or reorganization of” W4N’s business? ... The Queen, 2014 TCC 75 Justice Hogan of this Court considered, and based his reasoning on the very same case law, but found as a fact that the business activities of the company in question continued as usual and its format remained the same for almost two years after the alleged distribution (paragraphs 32–34). [71] Regard may also be had to the 2003 Canadian Tax Foundation article “Public Company Non-Butterfly Spinouts” by Messrs. ...

Justice Dickson (as he then was) at page 334 (D.L.R. 351-52): In short, I agree with the respondent that the legislation’s purpose is the initial test of constitutional validity and its effects are to be considered when the law under review has passed or, at least, has purportedly passed the purpose test. ... As discussed previously, a law which prohibits certain practices which are an essential part of one’s religion must be considered an abridgement or infringement of freedom of religion. ... Those practices, which are prohibited by the dictates of the conscience or religion, “must be considered an abridgement of the freedom to conscience and religion, even though the impact occurs indirectly"" (T.S., p. 82). ...

In allowing the appeal, MacLean, P. disposed of paragraph 3(e) in these words at 134-35 (D.T.C. 458-59): It seems quite clear that s. 3(e) of the Act contemplates a situation where the taxpayer, for services rendered, receives as salary or remuneration (1) money, and (2) something in addition to the money by way of either (a) a living allowance in money, or (b) the free use of premises for living purposes, or (c) some other allowance or perquisite, all or any of which may as a matter of sense and right be considered as part of the gain, salary or remuneration of the taxpayer. ... His Lordship said that whether extinguishing the interest debt was the conferring of a benefit on the respondent under paragraph 8(1)(c) must be considered as a question of fact. ... In Malkin No. 2 the Court considered amended paragraph 3(1)(e) and subparagraph 2(1)(r)(i) and both included that word. ...