Search - considered

Facts are the only thing that can be considered to be established by an admission. ...

He did not change his driver’s licence because he was too busy. [50]         He did not have to notify any credit card companies of a change of address because he did not have any credit cards; his credit was bad. [51]         Yusuf was not happy when he had to move out but concluded he had to move out  and let the Appellant and her family come back to 215 Shirrick  for the safety of his niece and nephew given “. . . the way they explained it to me what was going on in that neighbourhood”. [8] [52]         Moving out also led to his breaking up with his girlfriend and he moved back to where he was living before, his parents’ house. [53]         I do not accept substantial portions of the evidence of the Appellant and her witnesses and, as a consequence, I do not accept that the Appellant and her family moved into 161 Shirrick; I also do not accept that the Appellant bought 161 Shirrick with the intention of using it as the family’s principal place of residence. [54]         The considerations set out below, when considered collectively, make the Appellant’s evidence quite unlikely. [55]         It seems unlikely that the Appellant would have been unaware of a noise issue before closing if she intended to move to the house ...

(b) Capital outlay or loss – an outlay, loss or replacement of capital, a payment on account of capital or an allowance in respect of depreciation, obsolescence or depletion except as expressly permitted by this Part; … (9) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, (a) in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from a business or property (other than income from a business computed in accordance with the method authorized by subsection 28(1)), no deduction shall be made in respect of an outlay or expense to the extent that it can reasonably be regarded as having been made or incurred … (ii) as, on account of, in lieu of payment of or in satisfaction of, interest, taxes (other than taxes imposed on an insurer in respect of insurance premiums of a non-cancellable or guaranteed renewable accident and sickness insurance policy, or a life insurance policy other than a group term life insurance policy that provides coverage for a period of 12 months or less), rent or royalties in respect of a period that is after the end of the year,  … (b) such portion of each outlay or expense (other than an outlay or expense of a corporation, partnership or trust as, on account of, in lieu of payment of or in satisfaction of, interest) made or incurred as would, but for paragraph 18(9)(a), be deductible in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year shall be deductible in computing the taxpayer’s income for the subsequent year to which it can reasonably be considered to relate; Appellant’s Position [27]         The Appellant argues that the evidence confirms that $2.24 million was the amount paid by FSL to the Province by way of set-off (in addition to $10) as consideration for the surrender of the Ground Lease. ...

In other words, it does not permit a transaction to be considered to be an avoidance transaction because some alternative transaction that might have achieved an equivalent result would have resulted in higher taxes. [19]   Similarly, the appellant invoked the doctrine of the Supreme Court of Canada expressed in Shell Canada Ltd. v. ...

legal analysis of gross negligence [37]         It has been held that in drawing the line between “ordinary” negligence or neglect and “gross” negligence, a number of factors have to be considered: (a)     the magnitude of the omission in relation to the income declared, (b)     the opportunity the taxpayer had to detect the error, (c)     the taxpayer’s education and apparent intelligence, (d)     genuine effort to comply ...

For all the foregoing reasons, the appeal must be dismissed. [60]         I hasten to add that even though this Court has concluded on the correctness of the Notice of Assessment, it is also of the view that this might be an appropriate case for the Minister to consider a waiver of the penalties and interest on the basis of what I would characterize as an unacceptable processing delay on the part of CRA as well as the obvious mismanagement of the bankrupt estate by the second trustee whose files were seized by Order of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy and transferred to BDO Canada Limited as Guardian Trustee for final disposition. [61]         Regrettably, this Court does not have jurisdiction over the waiver of penalties and interest and the Appellant would have to raise this matter directly with the Minister, if he so chooses. [62]         All circumstances considered, I exercise my discretion not to award costs. ...

In the meantime she continued to live in the Markham property. [17]         With respect to the aforementioned Power of Attorney, Qun considered she did not have time, given her own business responsibilities, to manage the Markham property such as by renting it out, with Lucy not planning to continue at UofT. ...

  [39]         I will first consider whether the Appellant made the false statements under circumstances amounting to gross negligence. [40]         The phrase “ gross negligence ” as used in subsection 163(2) was considered in the widely adopted decision of Venne v. ...

Case law makes several mentions of the relative importance of written and signed contracts. [46]         To determine the nature of a working contract, having them in writing is certainly important, but they must essentially validate the facts in terms of how the work will be performed and under what conditions and circumstances. [47]         Only the facts inherent to its performance, context and terms have decisive importance for differentiating an enterprise contract from a contract of service. [48]         The intent written and signed by the parties to a contract is helpful and may be considered as an addition in situations that are very difficult to assess. ...

Ritchie”) the Supreme Court of Canada considered a contingency fee arrangement and, in the context of an award of costs, concluded that (para 28): (…) Unsuccessful defendants should expect to pay similar amounts by way of costs across similar pieces of litigation involving similar conduct and counsel, regardless of what arrangements the particular plaintiff may have concluded with counsel. ...