Search - considered

  [9]      The problem lies not with that fact but, essentially, with the applicable legislative provision that periodic payments must be made under a written agreement or order by a competent tribunal in order to be considered support payments ...

Thus the reduction of $67.87 to this amount results in an employment expense allowed to the Appellant of $3,341.34 in 1993. [6]      For 1994 counsel for the Respondent reduced the $567.58 figure in respect of advertising and promotions to $250 representing one-half of what the Minister considered a reasonable amount of $500. ...

Canada, [1998] 1 F.C. 124, the question as to whether the director has met the standard of care is a question of fact to be resolved in light of the personal knowledge and experience of the director. [17]     The personal knowledge and experience of the appellant must therefore be considered. ...

I have carefully considered the testimony of the Appellant and I accept her testimony. [14]     However, I agree with the decision of the Minister regarding the unproven statement that Wen Ling Zhu was given the sum of $19,800.00 by her parents in 1996. [15]     The Appellants' appeals will be allowed and the Minister is instructed to issue Notices of Reassessment on the following basis: Wen Ling Zhu 1997 1998 Understated Net Income $20,644 $9,286 Deduct $10,000 re gift from parents of son-in law [1] $10,000 Deduct $2,150 re sale of inventory $2,150 Understated net income $10,644 $7,136 Xiao-Pei Huang 1997 1998 Understated Net Income $20,644 $9,286 Deduct $10,000 re gift from parents of son-in law [2] $10,000 Deduct $2,150 re sale of inventory $2,150 Understated net income $10,644 $7,136 [16]     In reviewing the documents that were filed as exhibits with the Court, I could not reconcile the recommendations contained in the Report on the Notice of Objection (See Exhibit R-2). ...

In his opinion, there is no specific provision in the Act that authorizes the deduction of legal expenses either for the support payer or for the support recipient. [8]      In Sabour, supra, Judge Bowie of this Court wrote as follows regarding the position taken by Judge Archambault in Bergeron: [10]     As Archambault J. has said, the line of reasoning that he developed in Bergeron was not specifically considered in any of the decided cases. ...

Hatton considered while reaching her conclusions. It is crucial to the litigation that the Appellants be able to determine why their appeals were denied and to discover if they were granted fair and comprehensive consideration after their initial objection to the assessments. ...

Haines had listened to the Appellant's evidence (which he agreed with) and confirmed that in his professional dealings with the Appellant, he considered the Appellant blind most of the time because of his restriction. ...

She received cheques from the hospital for approximately the full amount of her normal wages that included the 75% from the W.C.B. and the 25% top up amount pursuant to the collective agreement as if she had been at work; she was not considered by the hospital to be on sick leave but was paid as if she was on continuous service. [21]     During the periods in issue, the worker received his full salary and health and dental insurance benefits as though his employment with the employer had not been interrupted. [22]     The worker received his full remuneration from the appellant in accordance with the Collective Agreement, and the CSST reimbursed the appellant for a portion of that remuneration paid to the worker. [23]     Whether the total amount received is called an income replacement indemnity or wage-loss insurance is of little importance. ...

First, the Appellants have apparently overlooked paragraphs 96.(8.2) and 96.(9) of the Act which provide as follows: 96. (8.2) With respect to 1999, the Minister shall refund to the employer the amount determined by the following formula if that amount is more than $1: (E2-E1) x P1999 where EI          is the total of all insurable earnings paid in 1998 by the employer, for which premiums were deductible, in respect of employees who were 18 years of age or older but younger than 25 at any time during 1998; E2         is the total of all insurable earnings paid in 1999 by the employer, for which premiums were deductible, in respect of employees who were 18 years of age or older but younger than 25 at any time during 1999; and P1999 is 1.4 times the premiums rate for 1999.... 96. (9) If at any time during a year for which a refund is sought two or more employers are associated, as defined by the regulations, they shall be considered a single employer for the purposes of subsections (6) to (8.4) and any refund shall be allocated to them in the prescribed manner. [10]     There was no evidence presented as to how many of the 803 transferred employees fall within the 18-25 age group. [11]     Second, before raising this constitutional question the Appellants failed to serve the notices required by subsection 57.(1) of the Federal Court Act [2] which provides as follows: 57.(1)    Where the constitutional validity, applicability or operability of an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of any province, or of regulations thereunder, is in question before the Court or a federal board, commission or other tribunal, other than a service tribunal within the meaning of the National Defence Act, the Act or regulation shall not be adjudged to be invalid, inapplicable or inoperable unless notice has been served on the Attorney General of Canada and the attorney general of each province in accordance with subsection (2). [12]     The appeals must accordingly be dismissed and the assessments confirmed. ...

The Worker was paid on a commission basis, which does not prevent the Worker to be considered as an employee. ...