Search - considered

The Federal Court of Appeal in Scott Irwin Simser v The Queen, 2004 FCA 414, quoted with approval the reasoning in Jones. [22]   Bell J. in Jean-Calvin Mbarga v The Queen, 2005 TCC 595, followed the reasoning in both Morin and Jones in concluding at paragraph 5 that “receipt” includes constructive receipt. [23]   In Her Majesty the Queen v Jean Livingston, 2008 FCA 89, the Federal Court of Appeal considered whether there had been a “transfer” of property under section 160 of the Act. ...

While we do not have any evidence at the hearing as to the nature of the $1,866, we do know that it was claimed and allowed. [21] [45]   In written submissions, the Respondent stated that it is for the Appellant to demonstrate the claim and bring the receipt to support that claim. [46]   However, given that the rebate claim was conceded, and even if it were the case that the claim only appeared to have been conceded, there was no reason to bring forth evidence with respect to the $1,866 given that the expense itself had been allowed. [22] [47]   As a result, before any variation could be considered and even it could otherwise be varied, fairness would require the matter be reopened to explore what the $1,866 was and whether the Appellant paid any GST or HST on the amount. [48]   If it could otherwise be varied and if I had a request before me to reopen the matter, I would not in the circumstances do so at this point considering the circumstances including the modest amount at stake and considering subsection 18.15(3) of the Tax Court of Canada Act which says: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act under which the appeal arises, the Court is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence in conducting a hearing and the appeal shall be dealt with by the Court as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit. [49]   For these reasons, the application will be dismissed. ...

(g) precisely 12 minutes before the close of business on the deadline set by this Court, the Respondent advised the Appellants that: (i)   She considered that the Appellants’ request was “not mandatory” under the Rules: (ii)   She would be willing to provide only a small portion of the documents requested; (iii)   before She did so, the Appellants must give undertakings not mandated by the Rules of this Court that would effectively prevent the Appellants from making any effective use of the documents in the prosecution of these appeals: and (iv)   the Respondent had redacted or excluded documents containing taxpayer information within the meaning of section 241 of the Income Tax Act. [14]   To be fair to the Respondent, its’ letter of September 28, 2018 offered to provide the Appellants with over 16,000 documents and contained conditions that the Appellants sign an acknowledgment that these documents are to be used only in connection with these matters in accordance with the implied undertaking rule and that they would respect the confidentiality requirements of section 241 and thus not disclose that personal information set out in that section. ...

There is no mention of any sort of additional damages being considered outside of those mentioned in the counterclaim. ...

Tehrani testified that he considered both the Sunset Lease and the PHS Lease as the same type of commercial lease, with similar terms and conditions. ...

For more than a decade, the wages, their value, the quantum, the payor and the payee were considered acceptable. ...

Abadi has done so under self-proclaimed duress in order to earn income. [13]   Moving to the factors to be considered, the Minister asserts that control, equipment, responsibility and management, right to the hire replacement workers all militate towards a contract of service or employment. ...

This can be seen from the T5 slips, which contain the Appellant’s account numbers. [55]   Further evidence that the Appellant knew DeMara was deducting personal expenses is provided by Exhibit R-23, which contains an email from the Appellant’s spouse to DeMara that states the following: “ Also we have received a bill for medical services, I guess we should pay for it and T5 it later. ” [56]   I also find that the Appellant made the false statements in his 2011 income tax returns in circumstances amounting to gross negligence. [57]   The phrase “gross negligence” as used in subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act was considered in the widely adopted decision of Venne v. ...

., 2001 FCA 240, para. 30.) [18]   In this informal procedure matter I accept the Respondent’s concession, at para. 53 of that party’s written submissions, that the Appellant’s ‘RBC joint Visa’ credit card balances for the beginning and end of each of the subject three taxation years, having been included in the Appellant’s consumer proposal, ought to be excluded from the net worth calculation underlying each of the appealed reassessments. [19]   Having heard and considered the testimony of the several witnesses in this matter, I am satisfied that the Appellant received the benefit of some cash gifts additional to those recognized by the CRA auditor. ...

What is required is a clear and settled intention to occupy the premises as a “primary place of residence”, considered in the context of an individual’s personal, family and work related circumstances. ...