Search - considered

Indeed, the Court was unable to find any decision to the contrary. 6 Subsection 118.4(1) of the Income Tax Act reads, (1) 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. 7 In 1994 Trisha was 17. ...

(g) In 1991 the Appellant purchased inventory of $10,000, 56% of which remained unsold at the end of the year. 6 At the hearing the Appellant admitted paragraphs (a) to (c) and denied paragraphs (d) to (g). 7 The issues before the Court are whether: (a) the Appellant is entitled to claim 80% of the maximum CCA available in respect of class 10 for his 1989, 1990 and 1991 taxation years; (b) the expense of $1,949 was incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income from business or property for his 1990 taxation years; (c) the Appellant's sales for Seabreeze Beverages for the 1991 taxation year were $34,709; (d) the amounts of $9,500, $2,516 and $500 were incurred by the Appellant for the purpose of gaining or producing income from business or property in 1991; (e) the amount of $10,000 in respect of Vendmart in 1991 was incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income for business or property; and (f) the amount of $5,600 should be considered inventory of Vendmart at the end of the Appellant's 1991 taxation year. 8 The Appellant had the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the Minister's reassessment for the 1989, 1990 and 1991 taxation years was ill-founded in fact and in law. ...

Having considered and weighed the arguments made to show what he characterized as prejudice, I do not believe that the amendment prejudiced or caused any harm whatever to the appellant. ...

He is a transit driver. 4 In about 1991 he considered giving up his job as a transit driver in Victoria and moving to Saskatoon. ...

.), in which Décary J.A. for the Court indicated that in the case of expenses to repair or renovate property the purpose of the expense must be considered. ...

It cites affidavit evidence of two of its employees on the point, and argues that the Federal Court erred in refusing, without an evidentiary basis, to recognize the consequent exposure of privileged information. [5] The Federal Court considered NBI’s evidence but found it vague and insufficient to establish that providing the unredacted Spreadsheet would reveal the privileged legal advice (see paragraphs 93 to 108 of the Federal Court’s reasons). ...

Despite the numerous arguments raised by the applicants on appeal, the RAD considered the determinative issue to be the RPD’s conclusions regarding a viable IFA in Mexico. ...

Main- waring’s evidence, in case No. 165547 [not yet reported], should be considered in toto as an inherent part of the instant one, a rather unusual suggestion properly objected to on appellant’s behalf. ...

An appellate Court should only intervene if the Judge considered irrelevant factors, failed to consider relevant factors, or reached an unreasonable conclusion (see Guibord v. ...

Therefore, there remains to be determined whether the rock bolt is a “ safety device and equipment for the prevention of accidents in the manufacturing or production of goods’’ (the italics are to indicate the questions left to be considered). ...