Search - considered

Largely, it is repeating arguments which were already considered and rejected by the Tribunal. ... Furthermore, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Tribunal considered the Canadian Licensing Agreement (at paras. 36-38, Tribunal decision). ... The distinctions that the appellant is attempting to draw are based on arguments that the Tribunal considered and rejected – namely, that the R&D payments relate to intangibles, and that these payments could be based on profit from the licensing of the Skechers brand rather than the sale of footwear. ...

File History [4]               The Worker requested a ruling on the status of her employment with the appellant for the Period. [5]               By letters dated July 9, 2015, the CPP/EI Rulings Officer notified the appellant and the Worker that it had been determined that the Worker was engaged in insurable and pensionable employment with the appellant as she was employed under a contract of service (the “Ruling”). [6]               By letter dated August 13, 2015, the appellant appealed the Ruling to the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) and by letter dated December 16, 2015, the Minister informed the appellant and the Worker that the Ruling had been confirmed. [7]               On July 17, 2015, the Worker filed a claim with the Ministry of Labour of the Province of Ontario alleging that she performed work as an “employee” of the appellant, rather than as an independent contractor from or around September 6, 2014 to May 3, 2015 and that the appellant was in violation of: (i) unpaid wages of $3,263.40; (ii) public holiday pay of $388.80; (iii) vacation pay of $1,083.08; (iv) termination pay of $972; (v) deductions from wages for rent (3 months); and (vi) wage statements not provided and ESA poster not provided/posted. [8]               After reviewing the usual “Four-fold test” used to determine whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor, that is (i) the control; (ii) the ownership of tools; and (iii) the chance of profit and; (iv) the risk of loss, the Employment Standards Officer in charge of the file concluded that the Worker would be considered an “employee” for the purposes of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 of Ontario. ... The appellant considered the Worker to be self-employed while the Worker considered herself to be an employee. ... The Worker did not have any capital expenditures to make and the only expense appears to be the cost of purchasing music sheets. [60]          The facts relating to the chance of profit and risk of loss clearly support an employer/employee relationship. [61]          All things considered, I conclude that a comparison of the factors in this case applied with the case of Wiebe Door, supports the Worker’s intention to be an employee. ...

Charter principles in respect to freedom of speech under paragraph 2(b) may need to be considered. ... Personal information, voluntarily introduced at the hearing and by necessity considered by the judge in dismissing the Appellant’s appeal, was not sensitive information requiring non-publication. ... The only personal information that might need to be protected is the Appellant’s address for which the alternative measure of redacting this information could be considered. ...

Certainly an opposite-sex couple may, after many years together, be considered to be in a conjugal relationship although they have neither children nor sexual relations. Obviously the weight to be accorded the various elements or factors to be considered in determining whether an opposite-sex couple is in a conjugal relationship will vary widely and almost infinitely. ... In that regard, the case law of the Tax Court of Canada has clearly decided that the fact of living under the same roof does not, in itself, indicate a conjugal relationship and that this is just one of the criteria that must be considered. ...

CLAUSE 7 If a judgment of separation from bed and board or of divorce is rendered between the spouses, any gifts executed between the spouses under their marriage contract shall be divided in half with the agreement that the spouses’ principal family residence must be considered as having been given in half to the spouse who is not its registered owner. [5]                On September 26, 2008, the appellant’s husband transferred to her, by notarial deed, his undivided half interest in a building. ... As the doctrine holds, death can be considered a time limit for execution or a term, and therefore can affect the point at which the obligation must be fulfilled, or on the other hand, death can be considered the very condition for the existence or the consideration of the gift. ... Gagné and the appellant, as amended by the notarial act dated December 8, 1990, must be considered a gift inter vivos. ...

Bacon explained that he provided services to many companies and that he was also considered to be an independent worker when he worked with the appellant. ... If so, it should be considered whether the workers were called to provide services to the appellant’s clients under the direction and control of those clients, and whether the workers were paid by the appellant. [51]          First, it should be noted that the expression “placement agency” is defined in the Canada Pension Plan Regulations to include certain situations and is therefore not exhaustive. ... In my opinion, the management of the workers at their work location is significant enough for these workers to be considered to be under the direction and control of the producer or presenter. [74]          The fourth and final test for the application of paragraph 6(g) is that the person must be remunerated by the agency. ...

It reasons, under subsection 37(1.2), an expenditure by a taxpayer in respect of property is deemed to be made when the property is considered to have become available for use by the taxpayer. ... Clearly, this is well short of what would be considered “all or substantially all” even with an elastic standard and the appellant fails to meet this condition. [55]          The evidence as to the actual use of the System undermines the stated intent. ... However, the appellant says the Minister did not and could not have considered how the appellant actually used the System nor were there any assumptions in the Reply as to the actual use of the System. ...

[Emphasis added.] [65]          This standard of analysis was reiterated by the CRA in its publication entitled Not dealing at arm’s length for purposes of the Employment Insurance Act (EIA), dated December 20, 2016, which states the following: In situations where the parties are non-related, the same circumstances of employment as those with related persons have to be considered. ... If the circumstances are substantially different, the employee and employer would be considered, in fact, not to be dealing with each other at arm’s length, and the employment will not be insurable. [Emphasis added.] [66]          Consequently, in light of those decisions and the CRA publication, I am of the view that in order to determine whether an unrelated employer and employee are not dealing at arm’s length, I must analyze all of the circumstances of employment in order to determine whether the employee and employer will be considered in the facts as having a non-arm’s length relationship. ...

DiGiuseppe was considered by Romspen as the principal debtor on the mortgages under the terms of the guarantee and a Guarantor’s clause. ... Standard of Review [22]   The standard against which the discretionary orders of a Prothonotary are to be reviewed was recently considered by the Federal Court of Appeal in Hospira Healthcare Corporation v Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215 [Hospira Healthcare]. ... However, Romspen does not take the position that the Prothonotary erred in finding that Romspen was first in line to the surplus fund. [50]   Having concluded that Romspen was first in line, the Prothonotary reviewed and considered Romspen’s claim to the funds based on its priority. ...

Based on the agreement, the CRA considered the commission payments to be part of the selling price of the Quatre Saisons shares. ... She did not have an appraisal of the shares of Quatre Saisons done and she merely considered that the selling price of the shares was equal to the amount of the commissions paid by Quatre Saisons to Placeval. ... The parties considered the payments made by Quatre Saisons to Placeval to be commissions. ...