Search - considered

Concerning this last clause, the father testified that he had given his agreement to it but said that the facts would be considered and that some other person would one day have to make that decision. ... On the whole, each appears to make a significant contribution so that the issue in the case at bar is far more a question of the degree of responsibility that an eligible individual must fulfil for the care and upbringing of the dependant. [7]      The definition of "eligible individual" reads as follows: in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a)         resides with the qualified dependant, (b)         is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant, (c)        is resident in Canada, (d)         is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or (b), and (e)             is, or whose cohabiting spouse is, a Canadian citizen or a person who                                                                          (i)                   is a permanent resident (within the meaning assigned by the Immigration Act), (ii)                 is a visitor in Canada or the holder of a permit in Canada (within the meanings assigned by the Immigration Act) who was resident in Canada throughout the 18 month period preceding that time, or (iii)                was determined before that time under the Immigration Act, or regulations made under that Act, to be a Convention refugee, and for the purposes of this definition, (f)         where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant's female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g)         the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) does not apply in circumstances set out in regulations made by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Human Resources Development, and (h)         factors to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing may be set out in regulations made by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Human Resources Development. [8]      In the case at bar, and as I have noted, each parent seems to meet the factors referred to above. ...

Canada [1], in which, on the facts of that case, I considered chronic fatigue syndrome to have caused a taxpayer's basic activities of daily living to have become markedly restricted and allowed the appeal. ... The effects of the impairment are 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 unable to perform a basic activity of daily living or requires an inordinate amount of time to do so. [4] [13]     An activity such as work, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity is not considered by the Act as a basic activity of daily living. ...

(Transcript, p. 7, l. 8-10) [17]     I accept the argument of counsel for the Respondent on this issue and I find that there is no valid basis to the argument that the Minister reassessed the wrong taxpayer. [18]     Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Appellant is entitled to additional ITCs and the Respondent maintains that the Appellant is not entitled to additional ITCs. [19]     Subsection 169(1) of the Excise Tax Act (the " Act ") reads as follows: 169. (1) General rule for [input tax] credits- Subject to this Part, where a person acquires or imports property or a service or brings it into a participating province and, during a reporting period of the person during which the person is a registrant, tax in respect of the supply, importation or bringing in becomes payable by the person or is paid by the person without having become payable, the amount determined by the following formula is an input tax credit of the person in respect of the property or service for the period:... [20]     I have also considered subsection 169(4) of the Act: (4) A registrant may not claim an input tax credit for a reporting period unless, before filing the return in which the credit is claimed, (a)    the registrant has obtained sufficient evidence in such form containing such information as will enable the amount of the input tax credit to be determined, including any such information as may be prescribed; and (b)    where the credit is in respect of property or a service supplied to the registrant in circumstances in which the registrant is required to report the tax payable in respect of the supply in a return filed with the Minister under this Part, the registrant has so reported the tax in a return filed under this Part. [21]     In Johnston v. The Minister of National Revenue, 3 DTC 1182 the Supreme Court of Canada held that the onus was on the taxpayer to show that the assessment was incorrect. [22]     Counsel for the Respondent maintains that when the Appellant purchased the assets there was no proof that any amount was paid for GST. [23]     I have carefully considered the evidence of the witnesses and I have analysed the various documents submitted by counsel for the Appellant and counsel for the Respondent. ...

Nor did she receive vacation leave days but was paid an amount of four percent of her salary. [11]     The appellant did not actually work during the days in question. [12]     Section 9.1 of the Employment Insurance Regulations (the "Regulations") reads as follows: Where a person's earnings are paid on an hourly basis, the person is considered to have worked in insurable employment for the number of hours that the person actually worked and for which the person was remunerated. [13]     The evidence showed that the appellant did not actually work during the sick days. Nor can the sum of $132.24 be considered in computing the number of insurable days because she did not actually work. [14]     Thus, the number of hours worked by the appellant with the payer Mailhot during the period in issue totalled 462 in accordance with the provisions of section 9.1 of the Regulations. ...

Cyr explained that these components could be considered to be artificial hearts and lungs because they take over the work of the heart and lungs. ... He argued that the components used during heart operations are considered to be artificial hearts and lungs. [7] Counsel for the respondent referred to section 25, and more specifically to the last part of that section, which says: “or similar article that is designed to be worn by an individual”. ...

The appellant and his spouse admitted that they did not sign the agreement. [7] Paragraph 4 of the “Financial contributions for the children” section of the agreement reads as follows: [TRANSLATION] The alimony paid prior to the signing of this agreement, namely one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00) a week from April 29, 1995, until now, was arranged to be payable in that way and shall be considered to have been paid and received under the agreement. ... He relied on an article of the Civil Code of Québec providing that an agreement entered into and ratified by the payment of the amounts owed must be considered an agreement signed by the parties. [10] The Minister relied on section 60 and paragraph 60(b) of the Income Tax Act, which read in part as follows: SECTION 60: Other deductions. ...

Analysis [10] The definition of "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act reads as follows: "eligible individual" in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant, (c) is resident in Canada, (d) is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or (b), and (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse is, a Canadian citizen or a person who (i) is a permanent resident (within the meaning assigned by the Immigration Act), (ii) is a visitor in Canada or the holder of a permit in Canada (within the meanings assigned by the Immigration Act) who was resident in Canada throughout the 18 month period preceding that time, or (iii) was determined before that time under the Immigration Act, or regulations made under that Act, to be a Convention refugee, and for the purposes of this definition, (f) where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant's female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing.    ... This determination must be made based on the factors set out in section 6302 of the Regulations cited below. [13] Section 6302 of the Regulations reads as follows: 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. [14] Having heard both parents, I am of the opinion that the assessment by the Department's analyst, which leaned in the father's favour, was reasonable. ...

As well, I have always considered and hoped that the racehorses would become a retirement project, generating additional income for the time when I could no longer practice my profession.             ... In my view, the conclusion is based on criteria that have not been considered in depth and on lack of knowledge of the horse racing industry.             ...

Having considered both submissions my decision is as follows: [13]          Section 11 of these Rules, provide amounts allowable for the services of counsel. ... An amount paid in order to acquire and use this expertise might be considered as an allowable disbursement provided it is established that it was essential for the conduct of the appeal. ...

Accordingly, Revenue Canada considered the employment of each was insurable under the provisions of the Employment Insurance Act (" Act "). [2] With respect to Janice Hanson ("Hanson"), the Minister determined that she was dealing at arm's length with Brooks and therefore her employment was not excluded from insurable employment. ... The facts assumed, properly considered, lead a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Minister. [21] During the relevant periods the appellant and Nancy and the appellant and Stacey would not have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing with each other at arm's length. ...