Search - considered

Once considered, the legal counsel’s opinions and the analyst’s report and recommendation, be it amended or not, were to be submitted to the Operations Branch, which had to decide whether or not to agree with the analyst’s recommendation; e.        ... In my opinion, therefore, the judge correctly considered the absence of any third-party information in order to conclude that the appellant was not entitled to receive a copy of the analysis before the decision was made. ... It remains to be determined whether the appellant correctly argued that it was unreasonable not only for the judge but also for the Deputy Commissioner to conclude that the wrongdoing of which he accused his superiors merely constituted the application of a balanced and informed decision-making process. [72]            The judge considered the factual background and particularly the many exchanges regarding File A between the appellant and his superiors in order to conclude that the appellant was able to express his opinion; and he accepted the misconduct as being true. ...

However, that does not mean that only one method for determining those ITCs could be considered fair and reasonable in the circumstances. ... In his written representations, counsel for the Respondent did not provide any reasons why the method adopted by the Applicant in the settlement offer could not be considered fair and reasonable for the purposes of subsection 141.01(5) of the Excise Tax Act. [19]         The Respondent also says that her conduct was irreproachable, that her position had a reasonable degree of sustainability, and that there were no unusual circumstances that would justify an increased award of costs against the Respondent. ... Parties are entitled to make and accept offers of settlement at any time before there is a judgment and any written offer to settle will be considered by the Court in assessing costs under section 147. ...

Application heard on June 21, 2016, at Québec, Quebec Before: The Honourable Justice Johanne D’Auray Appearances: Counsel for the Applicant: Pierre Hémond Counsel for the Respondent: Sylvain Lacombe ORDER           Upon reading the application made by the applicant for an extension of time to file notices of objection with the Minister of Revenu Québec regarding three assessments issued under the Excise Tax Act, for which the notices of assessment are dated August 20, 2014;           And upon having heard the parties;           The application for extension of time to file notices of objection regarding the three assessments is allowed, and the Court orders that the timeframe within which the notices of objection can be filed with the Minister of Revenu Québec be extended until the date of this order and that the notices of objection accompanying the application be considered as valid notices of objection on the date of this order. ... Barrette did not think she could object to the assessments at issue because they were void, but it remains nonetheless that, in her confusion, she was convinced that the rental property rebate applications were still being considered. ... The Queen, [7] Justice Lamarre Proulx considered plausible the applicant’s erroneous interpretation of the assessment and found it appropriate to allow the application since the taxpayer did not understand the exact nature of the assessment. ...

Therefore the issue of statutory interpretation will be considered first. [16]            SCDA also appealed the award of enhanced costs. ... Therefore, in awarding costs under Rule 147(1), any settlement offer is simply one of the factors to be considered. ... (emphasis added) [30]            The Tax Court judge’s consideration of the offer made by the Crown, as one of the factors to be considered under Rule 147(3), is consistent with the comments of the Alberta Court of Appeal. ...

Also there is a comment that a director’s liability assessment would be considered if there were no acceptance of the foregoing financing steps. ... And, at paras. 27 and 28 the Court considered the above-cited Campbell decision as follows, distinguishing it on the basis that the director in that case was focused at least in part on “trying to meet CRA remittances”: [27]      I was not made aware of any case in which a director successfully relied on a due diligence defence in circumstances where the director of a corporation in financial difficulties intentionally had the corporation pay creditors, other than the CRA, to keep the business afloat, in the hope that the business will ultimately turn profits and then be in a position to pay Government remittances. ... The Appellant also considered having cheques being paid to CRL from its customers endorsed directly over to CRA, but because the bank was monitoring the company receivables so closely, the Appellant felt the bank would simply stop this practice if it were to be initiated. … 49.       ...

There are many cases in which the matter has been considered both in this court and the Federal Court of Appeal. ... The question is whether, considered in the context of the law and the litigation process, the claim has no reasonable chance of succeeding. ... Where senior and experienced counsel advances a proposition of fact or law in a pleading that merits serious consideration by a trial judge, it is at least presumptuous and at most insulting and offensive to force counsel to face the argument that the position is so lacking in merit that it does not even deserve to be considered by a trial judge. (…) VII. ...

He must show on a balance of probabilities that the Minister made an error or did not consider all the relevant facts. [12]   In Livreur Plus Inc v Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2004 FCA 68, [2004] FCJ No. 267 (QL), Létourneau J. summarizes the Court’s role when hearing this type of appeal: 12   As already mentioned, the Minister assumed in support of his decision the existence of a number of facts obtained by inquiry from workers and the business he considered to be the employer. ... In determining that the Appellant was not engaged in insurable employment by the Payor during the period in dispute, the following presumptions of fact were considered: a.   ... CONCLUSION [58]   For these reasons, the Court is of the view that the relevant facts were considered and assessed in their context by the Minister, and thus, the Minister’s finding appears reasonable to the Court. ...

The RCMP also pointed out that it considered the information in connection with FINTRAC to be relevant and reliable due to their nature and source. [17]            On December 7, 2015, Mr. ... In particular, he considered that: (1) it was not up FINTRAC, but rather to the reporting entities to amend the previous statements if they contained any errors; (2) the information sheets complied with the statements received by FINTRAC, as they had not been amended by the reporting entities; (3) Mr. ... St-Laurent could himself submit as evidence the documents that he considered relevant for the purposes of the proceedings in Spain. [22]            On June 27, 2017, the applicants submitted this application for judicial review, and the next day, a motion to obtain an interlocutory injunction, a mandamus-type order, and a certiorari. [23]            In their notice of application, the applicants requested an order compelling the Department of Justice Canada and the RCMP to amend the inaccurate information regarding Mr. ...

  [15] There was no relief requested by Martin against any family corporation for an amount owed to him or that established a right to an amount owed to him that, if received by him as a result of the civil litigation, would be required to be included in his income from an office or employment or any relief sought that may reasonably be considered analogous to such request. ... Canada [21] for the proposition that salary paid to an employee by one corporation may be considered as being paid on behalf of another corporation. ... First of all, nowhere in his pleadings in the civil litigation does Martin ask for oppression relief against a family corporation that can reasonably be considered a demand to collect, or to establish a right to, an amount owed to Martin that, if received, would be included in his employment from an office or employment. ...

For the purposes of this appeal, the other three relevant paragraphs of this definition of eligible individual are (f), (g) and (h): (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 122.6 eligible individual (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing. ... A list of those prescribed factors, which are also referenced in subsection 122.6(h), are contained in Regulation 6302: 6302 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. [22]   Subsection 122.61(1.1) of the Act deals with the calculation of the CCTB for shared custody parents where both parents may be entitled to the benefit where they equally fulfill the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependants in the same month. ... Miller refused to follow the protocol when he had the children in his care. [28]   Going back to the definition of shared custody parent, another requirement of the term is contained in subsection (b) where it states that the individual to be considered a shared custody parent must first, reside with the qualified dependant and second, it must be on an “equal or near equal basis”. ...