Search - considered

I considered the four appeals together when making no order for costs to either side ...   [2]           I have considered all of these criteria. ...

Furthermore, if a nurse wanted to leave the CHSLD before the specified time, she was required to inform the head nurse (one of the nurses, Marie Carmen Douyon, even said that she had to have her authorization). [11]     These nurses considered themselves employed by the agency, since they claimed no expenses in calculating their income before Mr. ... This is also a criterion that must be considered (see Wolf v. Canada, [2002] F.C.J. no. 375 (QL), 2002 FCA 96, paragraph 118). [15]     I am thus of the opinion that the workers are covered by paragraph 6(g) of the Regulations and that their employment is insurable. [16]     The appeal is dismissed. ...

., approved, declared binding and ordered the parties to comply with the terms and conditions of the consent to corollary relief duly signed by the parties on October 1, 2003, in particular the following: (i)          the Appellant shall have custody of Jean-Sébastien and Caroline Bergeron-Duguay, (ii)         Donald Duguay shall have custody of Nadine Bergeron-Duguay; (e)         on April 2, 2004, the Minister informed the Appellant and Donald Duguay that their marital status was considered to be separated for the period commencing July 1, 2003; (f)          before the period in issue, the Appellant was always considered the parent who primarily fulfilled the responsibility for the care and upbringing of her child Caroline; (g)         the father, Donald Duguay, filed a Canada Child Tax Benefit claim with the Minister, alleging that it was he who had primarily fulfilled the responsibility for the care of his daughter Caroline starting on December 9, 2004; (h)         the Minister issued the notice of redetermination of Canada Child Tax Benefit made on March 18, 2005, for the 2003 base year, and the notice of redetermination of goods and services tax credit dated February 25, 2005, for the 2003 taxation year, to reflect the facts alleged by the father in his Canada Child Tax Benefit claim; (i)          at the objection stage, the Appellant reported, inter alia, the following facts: (i)          the child Caroline went to her father's home on or around December 8 or 9, 2004; (ii)         a social worker, Marie-Pierre Morneau, confirmed to the Appellant that her daughter Caroline wanted to return and live with her mother; (iii)        the child Caroline returned to her mother's home on March 17, 2005; (j)          the Minister found that the Appellant had not shown that she was the eligible individual in respect of her daughter Caroline for the period from January to March 2005 inclusive, for the base year and the 2003 taxation year. [4]      It was shown on a balance of probabilities that the child Caroline had visited her father during the annual Christmas vacation in December 2004. [5]      At the end of the vacation, the father refused to take the necessary steps for Caroline to return and live with her mother. [6]      A social worker, Marie-Pierre Morneau, intervened; the Appellant then sent the child's father a formal demand to return the child to her in accordance with the legal custody that the Court had awarded her. [7]      The Minister claims that the Appellant, Diane Bergeron, Caroline's mother, was not entitled to the Canada Child Tax Benefit for the period from January to March 2005 on the ground that Caroline was with her father at the time, even though it was in the context of unlawful custody. [8]       According to the explanation given by the Appellant in her Notice of Objection, the person or persons responsible for reviewing the case clearly lacked thoroughness in the way they handled the file by focusing essentially on the untrue version that the father had provided and limiting the case review to a bare minimum. [9]       Paragraph 122.6(a) of the Income Tax Act requires that the eligible individual reside with the dependent. ...

The Minister considered that the Appellant was not an eligible individual within the meaning of section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act (the " Act "). 9.          ... The issues are: (a)         whether the Appellant is considered an eligible individual after August 31, 2002 pursuant to section 122.6 of the Act for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 base years; (b)         whether the Appellant was overpaid CCTB benefits in the amount of $4,413.96 in respect of the 2001, 2002 and 2003 base years; (c)         whether Brittany is a qualified dependant of the Appellant after August 31, 2002 pursuant to section 122.5 of the Act for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 base years; and (d)         whether the Appellant was overpaid GSTC benefits in the amount of $487.75 in respect of the 2001, 2002 and 2003 base years. ...

In some ways, André could be considered to have continued residing with his mother. ... Accordingly, it is necessary to consider the factors set out in section 6302 of the Income Tax Regulations, which reads as follows:   6302    Factors — For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant:   (a)        the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant;   (b)        the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides;   (c)        the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant;   (d)        the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant;   (e)        the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person;   (f)        the attendance to the hygienic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis;   (g)        the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and   (h)        the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides ...

I do not think that control should be considered a major factor in cases like this. ... Hickey as a fisher, but this must be considered from the worker's point of view if it is not to be misleading. ...

(h.1)      Motor vehicle travel expenses- where the taxpayer, in the year, (i)          was ordinarily required to carry on the duties of the office or employment away from the employer's place of business or in different places, and (ii)         was required under the contract of employment to pay motor vehicle expenses incurred in the performance of the duties of the office or employment, amounts expended by the taxpayer in the year in respect of motor vehicle expenses incurred for travelling in the course of the office or employment, except where the taxpayer (iii)        received an allowance for motor vehicle expenses that was, because of paragraph 6(1)(b), not included in computing the taxpayer's income for the year, or (iv)        claims a deduction for the year under paragraph (f). [4]      These provisions have been carefully considered on more than one occasion by the Federal Court of Appeal. ... Canada (Attorney-General) [2], Desjardins, J.A. stated at page 379: [7]         It is well established that travel expenses incurred by a taxpayer in travelling to and from his home to his place of work are considered personal expenses. ...

The Minister in fact established an overpayment of $2,839.15. [2]      In making and confirming the redetermination dated February 20, 2003, in respect of the 2000 base year, the Minister assumed the same facts: [TRANSLATION] (a)         by letter dated October 31, 2002, the Minister sent the Appellant a questionnaire to be completed in order to determine her marital status during the period from January 1 to December 31, 2000; (b)         that check was made necessary since the Minister's files showed that the Appellant was a single person at December 31, 2000, whereas the address of Steve Morin corresponded to that of the Appellant; (c)         on November 13, 2002, the Appellant, in response to the questionnaire dated October 31, 2002, provided the Minister with the following information: (i)          the Appellant stated that she was a de facto spouse from January to June 2000; (ii)         the Appellant considered herself single during the period from July to November 2000; (iii)        the Appellant said she was a de facto spouse in December 2000, adding that Steve Morin had come to live with her at the start of that month; (iv)        during the period from July to November 2000, the Appellant told us that Steve Morin lived at 2805 Boul. Henri-Bourassa Est, Apartment 405; (v)         according to the lease submitted, the Appellant and Steve Morin lived in an apartment located at 4310 45th Street in the City of Saint-Léonard prior to July 2000; (vi)        according to that same lease, the Appellant alone rented the apartment at 4161 43rd Street, Apartment 3, in the Town of Saint-Michel, starting in July 2000 since Steve Morin, with the landlord's consent, ceased to assume any responsibility with respect to that apartment; (d)         no document was provided showing that the Appellant and Steve Morin were living in separate dwellings at December 31, 2000; (e)         on January 8, 2003, the Minister informed the Appellant in writing that her marital status would be amended to that of de facto spouse as of December 31, 2000; (f)          the Minister considered the family income for the base year in issue in recalculating the Appellant's child tax benefits. [3]      The only issue in the instant case is whether the Appellant and Steve Morin were living in a de facto union on December 31, 2000. ...

To succeed in this appeal, Gen-U-Wine must show the Minister exercised his discretion improperly by having done at least one of the following: a)      acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose or motive; or b)     failed to take into account all of the relevant circumstances, as expressly required by subparagraphs 5(3)(b); or c)      considered an irrelevant factor. [1] [7]      There is no suggestion that the Minister acted in bad faith or improperly in reaching his conclusions. ... Specifically, Gen-U-Wine has successfully demolished the assumptions set out in paragraphs 8(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n) and (o) of the Reply. [8]      By having failed to take into account all of the relevant circumstances and/or considered irrelevant factors in reaching his decision, the Minister improperly exercised his discretion. ...

ANALYSIS [13]     I have carefully considered the testimony of the Applicant and the documents submitted by him and by counsel for the Respondent. ... Fawaz, the Applicant has never received the Notification. [16]     I have considered the Applicant's argument and I have concluded that in this situation all that is necessary to comply with the Act is for the Minister to issue the Notification by Registered Mail. ...