Search - considered

Subsection 118.4(1) provides: For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or can reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b) an individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding and dressing oneself, (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi) walking; and (d) for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. ...

Catharine's were to be considered by the Court in light of this technology, it would be “somewhat bizarre” if the method of delivery changed the outcome. ...

The wording of subsections 118.3(1) and 118.4(1) applicable to the years 1991, 1992, 1993 is as follows: 118.3(1) Where (a) an individual has a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment, (a.l) the effects of the impairment are such that the individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted, (a.2) a medical doctor, or where the impairment is an impairment of sight, a medical doctor or an optometrist, has certified in prescribed form that the individual has a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment the effects of which are such that the individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted, (b) the individual has filed for a taxation year with the Minister the certificate described in paragraph (a.2), and (c) no amount in respect of remuneration for an attendant, or care in a nursing home, in respect of the individual, is included in calculating a deduction under section 118.2 (otherwise than because of paragraph 118.2(2)(b.l)) for the year by the individual or by any other person, for the purposes of computing the tax payable under this Part by the individual for the year, there may be deducted an amount determined by the formula A x $4,118 where A is the appropriate percentage for the year. 118.4(1) For the purposes of subsection 6(16), 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or can reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b) an individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding and dressing oneself, (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi) walking; and (d) for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. ...

(f) after he moved out of the property in 1993, he charged all of the expenses to the rental income (i) he agreed this represented the operating results for the seven year period (k) he considered that the rental income from the basement helped to defray the cost of the investment property, not defraying his personal expenses (l) he would be able to present receipts for the expenses charged to show they were not “personal expenses” (m) he purchased the property in order to make a profit (n) in his view the property is now showing a profit Counsel for the Respondent filed with the Court, a copy of a questionnaire which the Appellant had completed during the assessment process. ...

Bonner T.C.J. considered Pidskalny. He said this at page 1215: The decision of this Court in Pidskalny appears to suggest that subsection 227.1(3) protects a director who failed to try to prevent a failure to remit because he had no knowledge of the rights, responsibilities and obligations of a directorship and was uninvolved with the management of the company. ...

The Court has considered the written submissions where applicable and it has concluded that in respect to the 1991 taxation year, as with respect to the other years, the duty of the Appellant is to satisfy the Court on the balance of probabilities that the assessments in question are not valid. ...

And then he continues: In this regard, the first issue to be considered is the casual connection requirement... ...

Indeed, it cannot be said on the evidence before me that the various arguments that the appellant is raising now were considered either by Mr. ...

Subsection 55(2) reads: (2) Where a corporation resident in Canada has after April 21, 1980 received a taxable dividend in respect of which it is entitled to a deduction under subsection 112(1) or 138(6) as part of a transaction or event or a series of transactions or events (other than as part of a series of transactions or events that commenced before April 22, 1980), one of the purposes of which (or, in the case of a dividend under subsection 84(3), one of the results of which) was to effect a significant reduction in the portion of the capital gain that, but for the dividend, would have been realized on a disposition at fair market value of any share of capital stock immediately before the dividend and that could reasonably be considered to be attributable to anything other than income earned or realized by any corporation after 1971 and before the transaction or event or the commencement of the series of transactions or events referred to in paragraph (3)(«), notwithstanding any other section of this Act, the amount of the dividend (other than the portion thereof, if any, subject to tax under Part IV that is not refunded as a consequence of the payment of a dividend to a corporation where the payment is part of the series of transactions or events) (a) shall be deemed not to be a dividend received by the corporation; (b) where a corporation has disposed of the share, shall be deemed to be proceeds of disposition of the share except to the extent that it is otherwise included in computing such proceeds; and... ...

It is clear because of this test that each case is to be decided on its merits, which must be considered in light of its particular circumstances. ...