Search - considered

He did not conduct an audit, nor did he look at the deductibility of the expenses claimed; he considered only the business's bank account and did not take into account the cash transactions. ...

  [27]     I t is consonant with this scheme that any event that removes value from the fund should be considered and treated as a taxable event, as there has been no prior taxation of those sheltered funds. ...

If these arguments had been raised when commencement day cases were first being considered, they might have been persuasive if the scheme of the subject provisions had been interpreted to give consideration to cash flow variations in child support payments. ...

Himour, the payee, as the “Worker”):   (a)        the Appellant was in the business of blowing insulation into the attics of residential and commercial buildings; (b)        the Appellant obtained the contracts and the work; (c)        the Worker was hired as an insulation applicator and his duties included operating the blower hose in the attic of buildings; (d)        the Appellant also employed a hopper operator who emptied bags of insulation into the blower hopper; (e)        the Worker and the hopper operator worked as a crew; (f)         the Worker and the Appellant did not enter into a written agreement; (g)        the Worker performed his services in the field; (h)        the Worker was paid by piece work as follows:            - $.05 per square foot for new buildings,            - $.06 per square foot for existing buildings; (i)         the Worker also received a set wage of $16.00 per hour for travel time, for out-of-town jobs; (j)         the Appellant guaranteed the Worker a minimum monthly wage of $2,300.00; (k)        the Appellant determined the Worker’s pay rate; (l)         the Appellant determined the amount of work to be performed; (m)       the Worker did not bid for jobs; (n)        the Worker did not invoice the Appellant; (o)        the Appellant calculated the Worker’s earnings based on the work completed; (p)        the Appellant paid the Worker on a monthly basis with a mid-month advance; (q)        the Appellant also paid the Worker a year-end bonus; (r)        the Worker worked whatever hours were required to complete the assigned work; (s)        the Worker normally worked from 7:00AM to 6:00PM during the busiest period of fall and winter; (t)         the Worker worked shorter hours in summer; (u)        the Worker was under the direction and control of the Appellant; (v)        the Appellant scheduled the work; (w)       the Appellant assigned work to the Worker; (x)        the Worker did not have the power to accept or reject work; (y)        the Appellant instructed the Worker regarding the amount of insulation to install; (z)        the Worker informed the Appellant of any leave required; (aa)      the Worker could not hire his own helper or replace himself; (bb)      the Appellant supplied and paid all helpers and replacements; (cc)      the Appellant provided all of the tools and equipment required including a 5 ton truck with a blower system, 200 feet of hose, knives, coveralls, masks, safety glass and boots; (dd)      the coveralls provided by the Appellant had the Appellant’s business name on the back; (ee)      the Worker did not provide any tools or equipment; (ff)        the Appellant provided all of the supplies and materials required including the insulation; (gg)      the Worker did not incur any expenses in the performance of his duties; (hh)      the Worker was not liable for any damages; (ii)        the Worker did not have a chance of profit or risk of loss; (jj)        the intent of the Worker was employment; (kk)      the Appellant considered the hopper operator an employee; (ll)        the Worker did not carry his own liability insurance; (mm)    the Worker did not charge the Appellant GST, and (nn)      the Worker was not in business for himself while performing services for the Appellant ...

Justice Woods allowed the appeal on the basis that the Minster had not considered the discretionary provisions in subsections 122.62(2) and 220(2.1) of the Act. ...

However, the use of an objective standard does not imply that the particular circumstances of a director should be ignored:   … These circumstances must be taken into account, but must be considered against an objective “reasonably prudent person” standard. …   (Buckingham, paragraph 39)   [18]          Although Respondent Counsel relied on the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision in Buckingham, he failed to note the similarities between the facts in the present appeals and those in Buckingham, where Mr. ...

As already mentioned, the Minister assumed in support of his decision the existence of a number of facts obtained by inquiry from workers and the business he considered to be the employer. ...

As I have said, it is not for me to decide whether the Appellant's activity amounts to a violation of the Bank Act, but it is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Continental Bank [6] that the activity is what it is, whether or not it contravenes the Bank Act. [18]     The Appellant argues that, in any event, the branch services cannot come within the definition of financial service because they are administrative services, and therefore are specifically excluded from the definition by paragraph (t) and section 4 of the Regulation. [7] This provision has been considered only twice by this Court, [8] and neither case sheds any light on the meaning of the expression "any administrative service" ("les services administratifs"). ...

Doctor, is parallel to the concept that where a litigant engages in a wholesale disregard of time limits in the rules, such a breach ought to be considered not only from the point of view of prejudice, but also in the light of prejudice to the due administration of justice.... [41]          For a year, the appellant displayed a flagrant breach of his obligations before this Court. ...

In coming to this decision, I have considered the decisions in The Queen v. ...