Search - considered

This interpretation was accepted by the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) at paragraph 11 of its reasons. [13]         The Appellant submits that the IRCs meet all the requirements for being considered as coupons. ... As I mentioned previously, the FCA, in Tele‑Mobile, held that not requiring that the customer tender a coupon would “allow just about any advertised discount to be considered as a ‘coupon’ for the purposes of section 181 of the [ETA]” (FCA decision, para. 11). [28]         What makes matters confusing in the present situation is that, during the relevant period, Nestlé made available to Costco customers paper coupons (which were handed out to customers when they entered the Costco warehouses, as stated in the Appellant’s written submissions at para. 12), and it is not disputed that the IRCs were considered by Nestlé as having the same characteristics as the paper coupons. ... By contrast, under the section 232.1 promotional allowance regime, the customer pays GST/HST on the reduced price of the supply. [5] [42]         In the present case, Nestlé and Costco treated the discount as falling under the coupon regime at the customer’s expense. [43]         The Federal Court of Appeal, in Tele-Mobile, was concerned that a relaxation of the tendering requirement would allow any discount arrangement to be considered a coupon, [6] which in turn would require the customer to overpay GST/HST and result in the provider of the coupon obtaining the benefit of this excess payment through an input tax credit. ...

  [105]   Ideally, with respect to the novelty of the devices considered, there was more extensive evidence that there were no devices meeting needs. However, I accept that what was considered was new. [106]   However, as with the previous projects, the evidence does not support a finding that the uncertainties are technological uncertainties. [39] [107]   There is therefore no need to vary the assessment with respect to the MDCO project. ... However, if one can successfully, or if an attempt is made to, upgrade an old machine using a new process that is much more resourcefully efficient, it is possible that it can be considered experimental development if work cannot be performed with routine engineering or standard procedures. [23] The causes of difficulty included the following: a lack of information pertaining to the operation of the palletizers and depalletizers, inter alia, because the original manufacturer no longer provided technical support for the machines; certain information that the appellant had to discover over the course of the work but that was known, for example, one or more lifting platforms worked differently in auto mode and in manual mode, information that had to be known by Diageo operators but that was not communicated to the appellant; constraints related to the space in which it was necessary to work. [24] Nor is it because a systematic effort is made to solve uncertainties and problems that this automatically constitutes an effort to overcome technological uncertainties and, therefore, experimental development. ...

The court considered the issue of whether a conflict existed where it appeared that another lawyer, from the same firm that was representing the plaintiff, would be called to testify at the trial. ... It should be noted, however, that Justice O’Keefe cited only the earlier decision of Justice Nadon in International Business Machines. [21]         This Court has considered the removal of counsel of record in only limited circumstances and none of those decisions considered the reasoning of the Ontario Divisional Court in Essa. ... Where there is a risk that goes to the weight of the evidence being considered, then such a risk should be avoided by disqualifying counsel of record unless it is otherwise clearly necessary to continue with that counsel. [22]         Although none of the decisions from this Court have involved removal of counsel of record where a lawyer from the same firm would be providing testimony by affidavit or at the hearing, Appellant counsel relied on these decisions to support their argument against removal of counsel in the motion before me. [23]         Most of this Court’s decisions relevant to this motion were canvassed by Chief Justice Rossiter in this 2016 case, Attisano v The Queen, 2016 CarswellNat 966 (TCC). ...

., 2016 TCC 171, Justice Owen provided the following overview of Rule 58 as it now reads following changes thereto which came into effect in 2014: [4] “[10]         Rule 58 has been considered in a number of cases. However, only a few cases have considered the most recent iteration of the rule, which came into effect on February 7, 2014 (SOR/2014-26, s. 6). ... In light of the important differences between Sentinel Hill and these Applications, I am of the view that the Question has not previously been fully considered by either this Court or the Federal Court of Appeal. ...

A gift shall not be included in the total charitable gifts, total Crown gifts, total cultural gifts or total ecological gifts of an individual unless the making of the gift is proven by filing with the Minister (a) a receipt for the gift that contains prescribed information;... 237.1(1) Definitions “gifting arrangement” − means any arrangement under which it may reasonably be considered, having regard to statements or representations made or proposed to be made in connection with the arrangement, that if a person were to enter into the arrangement, the person  would (a)    make a gift to a qualified donee, or a contribution referred to in subsection 127(4.1), of property acquired by the person under the arrangement; or (b)    incur a limited-recourse debt, determined under subsection 143.2(6.1), that can reasonably be considered to relate to a gift to a qualified donee or a monetary contribution referred to in subsection 127(4.1). “tax shelter” – means (a)      a gifting arrangement described by paragraph (b) of the definition “gifting arrangement”; and (b)      a gifting arrangement described by paragraph (a) of the definition “gifting arrangement”, or a property (including any right to income) other than a flow-through share or a prescribed property, in respect of which it can reasonably be considered, having regard to statements or representations made or proposed to be made in connection with the gifting arrangement or the property, that, if a person were to enter into the gifting arrangement or acquire an interest in the property, at the end of a particular taxation year that ends within four years after the day on which the gifting arrangement is entered into or the interest is acquired, (i)             the total of all amounts each of which is (A)     an amount, or a loss in the case of a partnership interest, represented to be deductible in computing the person's income for the particular year or any preceding taxation year in respect of the gifting arrangement or the interest in the property (including, if the property is a right to income, an amount or loss in respect of that right that is stated or represented to be so deductible), or (B)      any other amount stated or represented to be deemed under this Act to be paid on account of the  person's tax payable, or to be deductible in computing the person's income, taxable income or tax payable under this Act, for the particular year or any preceding taxation year in respect of the gifting arrangement or the interest in the property, other than an amount so stated or represented that is included in computing a loss described in clause (A) would equal or exceed (ii)              the amount, if any, by which (A)     the cost to the person of the property acquired under the gifting arrangement, or of the interest in the property at the end of the particular year, determined without reference to section 143.2, would exceed (B)      total of all amounts each of which is the amount of any prescribed benefit that is expected to be received or enjoyed, directly or indirectly, in respect of the property acquired under the gifting arrangement, or of the interest in the property, by the person or another person with whom the person does not deal at arm's length. 237.1(2) Application.  ... R., 2015 CarswellNat 5133 (TCC – General Procedure), paragraph 19). [45]          The subjective intention of the taxpayer must be considered but his or her stated intention is not determinative and must be based in objective reality. ...

Indeed, during oral argument of their appeal counsel for the appellants confirmed both that PWR had not distributed its retained earnings to 1245 and that the corporate reorganization could be unwound. [31]   Thus, while the corporate reorganization changed the tax attribute of the Class E preferred shares, creating the potential for a tax-free distribution of 1245’s retained earnings, that potential has, to date, not been realized. [32]   Because the tax-free distribution of retained earnings section 84.1 is intended to prevent has not occurred section 84.1 has not, to date, been mis-used or abused. [33]   This situation is analogous to that considered by Justice Rothstein writing for the majority in OSFC Holdings Ltd. v. ... Y sont assimilés la réduction, l’évitement ou le report d’impôt ou d’un autre montant qui serait exigible en application de la présente loi en l’absence d’un traité fiscal ainsi que l’augmentation d’un remboursement d’impôt ou d’un autre montant visé par la présente loi qui découle d’un traité fiscal. tax consequences to a person means the amount of income, taxable income, or taxable income earned in Canada of, tax or other amount payable by or refundable to the person under this Act, or any other amount that is relevant for the purposes of computing that amount; attribut fiscal S’agissant des attributs fiscaux d’une personne, revenu, revenu imposable ou revenu imposable gagné au Canada de cette personne, impôt ou autre montant payable par cette personne, ou montant qui lui est remboursable, en application de la présente loi, ainsi que tout montant à prendre en compte pour calculer, en application de la présente loi, le revenu, le revenu imposable, le revenu imposable gagné au Canada de cette personne ou l’impôt ou l’autre montant payable par cette personne ou le montant qui lui est remboursable. transaction includes an arrangement or event. opération Sont assimilés à une opération une convention, un mécanisme ou un événement. (2) Where a transaction is an avoidance transaction, the tax consequences to a person shall be determined as is reasonable in the circumstances in order to deny a tax benefit that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, from that transaction or from a series of transactions that includes that transaction. (2) En cas d’opération d’évitement, les attributs fiscaux d’une personne doivent être déterminés de façon raisonnable dans les circonstances de façon à supprimer un avantage fiscal qui, sans le présent article, découlerait, directement ou indirectement, de cette opération ou d’une série d’opérations dont cette opération fait partie. (3) An avoidance transaction means any transaction (3) L’opération d’évitement s’entend: (a) that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit; or a) soit de l’opération dont, sans le présent article, découlerait, directement ou indirectement, un avantage fiscal, sauf s’il est raisonnable de considérer que l’opération est principalement effectuée pour des objets véritables — l’obtention de l’avantage fiscal n’étant pas considérée comme un objet véritable; (b) that is part of a series of transactions, which series, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit. b) soit de l’opération qui fait partie d’une série d’opérations dont, sans le présent article, découlerait, directement ou indirectement, un avantage fiscal, sauf s’il est raisonnable de considérer que l’opération est principalement effectuée pour des objets véritables — l’obtention de l’avantage fiscal n’étant pas considérée comme un objet véritable. (4) Subsection (2) applies to a transaction only if it may reasonably be considered that the transaction (4) Le paragraphe (2) ne s’applique qu’à l’opération dont il est raisonnable de considérer, selon le cas: (a) would, if this Act were read without reference to this section, result directly or indirectly in a misuse of the provisions of any one or more of a) qu’elle entraînerait, directement ou indirectement, s’il n’était pas tenu compte du présent article, un abus dans l’application des dispositions d’un ou de plusieurs des textes suivants: (i) this Act, (i) la présente loi, (ii) the Income Tax Regulations, (ii) le Règlement de l’impôt sur le revenu, (iii) the Income Tax Application Rules, (iii) les Règles concernant l’application de l’impôt sur le revenu, (iv) a tax treaty, or (iv) un traité fiscal, (v) any other enactment that is relevant in computing tax or any other amount payable by or refundable to a person under this Act or in determining any amount that is relevant for the purposes of that computation; or (v) tout autre texte législatif qui est utile soit pour le calcul d’un impôt ou de toute autre somme exigible ou remboursable sous le régime de la présente loi, soit pour la détermination de toute somme à prendre en compte dans ce calcul; (b) would result directly or indirectly in an abuse having regard to those provisions, other than this section, read as a whole. b) qu’elle entraînerait, directement ou indirectement, un abus dans l’application de ces dispositions compte non tenu du présent article lues dans leur ensemble. (5) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), and notwithstanding any other enactment, (5) Sans préjudice de la portée générale du paragraphe (2) et malgré tout autre texte législatif, dans le cadre de la détermination des attributs fiscaux d’une personne de façon raisonnable dans les circonstances de façon à supprimer l’avantage fiscal qui, sans le présent article, découlerait, directement ou indirectement, d’une opération d’évitement: (a) any deduction, exemption or exclusion in computing income, taxable income, taxable income earned in Canada or tax payable or any part thereof may be allowed or disallowed in whole or in part, a) toute déduction, exemption ou exclusion dans le calcul de tout ou partie du revenu, du revenu imposable, du revenu imposable gagné au Canada ou de l’impôt payable peut être en totalité ou en partie admise ou refusée; (b) any such deduction, exemption or exclusion, any income, loss or other amount or part thereof may be allocated to any person, b) tout ou partie de cette déduction, exemption ou exclusion ainsi que tout ou partie d’un revenu, d’une perte ou d’un autre montant peuvent être attribués à une personne; (c) the nature of any payment or other amount may be recharacterized, and c) la nature d’un paiement ou d’un autre montant peut être qualifiée autrement; (d) the tax effects that would otherwise result from the application of other provisions of this Act may be ignored, in determining the tax consequences to a person as is reasonable in the circumstances in order to deny a tax benefit that would, but for this section, result, directly or indirectly, from an avoidance transaction. d) les effets fiscaux qui découleraient par ailleurs de l’application des autres dispositions de la présente loi peuvent ne pas être pris en compte. (6) Where with respect to a transaction (a) a notice of assessment, reassessment or additional assessment involving the application of subsection 245(2) with respect to the transaction has been sent to a person, or (b) a notice of determination pursuant to subsection 152(1.11) has been sent to a person with respect to the transaction, any person (other than a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b)) shall be entitled, within 180 days after the day of sending of the notice, to request in writing that the Minister make an assessment, reassessment or additional assessment applying subsection (2) or make a determination applying subsection 152(1.11) with respect to that transaction. (6) Dans les 180 jours suivant l’envoi à une personne d’un avis de cotisation, de nouvelle cotisation ou de cotisation supplémentaire qui tient compte du paragraphe (2) en ce qui concerne une opération, ou d’un avis concernant un montant déterminé en application du paragraphe 152(1.11) en ce qui concerne une opération, toute personne autre qu’une personne à laquelle un de ces avis a été envoyé a le droit de demander par écrit au ministre d’établir à son égard une cotisation, une nouvelle cotisation ou une cotisation supplémentaire en application du paragraphe (2) ou de déterminer un montant en application du paragraphe 152(1.11) en ce qui concerne l’opération. (7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the tax consequences to any person, following the application of this section, shall only be determined through a notice of assessment, reassessment, additional assessment or determination pursuant to subsection 152(1.11) involving the application of this section. (7) Malgré les autres dispositions de la présente loi, les attributs fiscaux d’une personne, par suite de l’application du présent article, ne peuvent être déterminés que par avis de cotisation, de nouvelle cotisation ou de cotisation supplémentaire ou que par avis d’un montant déterminé en application du paragraphe 152(1.11), compte tenu du présent article. (8) On receipt of a request by a person under subsection 245(6), the Minister shall, with all due dispatch, consider the request and, notwithstanding subsection 152(4), assess, reassess or make an additional assessment or determination pursuant to subsection 152(1.11) with respect to that person, except that an assessment, reassessment, additional assessment or determination may be made under this subsection only to the extent that it may reasonably be regarded as relating to the transaction referred to in subsection 245(6). (8) Sur réception d’une demande présentée par une personne conformément au paragraphe (6), le ministre doit, dès que possible, après avoir examiné la demande et malgré le paragraphe 152(4), établir une cotisation, une nouvelle cotisation ou une cotisation supplémentaire ou déterminer un montant en application du paragraphe 152(1.11), en se fondant sur la demande. ...

At paragraphs 21 to 23 she stated: [21]   The questions to be considered for the purposes of section 2 are whether the origin or termination of the transportation services provided by City Tours is outside Canada, and whether there is a stopover outside Canada. [22]   I will first consider whether the origin or termination of the transportation services provided by City Tours is outside Canada. ... Therefore the origin or termination of any continuous journey is not outside Canada. [23]   It remains to be considered for the purpose of section 2 whether there is a stopover outside Canada. ... Canada v The Queen, [2002] GSTC 124, examined several factors to be considered in determining if an activity is business or personal in nature: the purpose of the input, for whose benefit the input was incurred and the context within which the input was incurred. ...

The Respondent [50]   The Respondent maintains that the Commissioner carefully considered the Applicants’ disclosure of wrongdoing and reasonably concluded that he had no reason to believe that any wrongdoing had been committed within the meaning of section 8 of the Act. [51]   In the Respondent’s view, decisions surrounding the formulation and structure of a disclosure under the Act are those of a discloser, including whether to include certain documents or simply describe their contents and reference them in footnotes. ... [60]   The Respondent says the Commissioner’s decision cannot be supplemented through affidavit evidence unless that evidence falls within the recognized exceptions to the general rule that only the evidence before a decision-maker can be considered on judicial review. ... In rendering its judgment, the Court has disregarded and not considered those portions of the Applicants’ affidavit containing legal argument or information not directly before the Commissioner. ...

Nurridinov’s ability to obtain an exit visa undermined the credibility of his allegation that he was arrested and tortured by the SNB because of his association with local Muslims. [21]   The RAD then considered the RPD’s negative assessment of Ms. ... They argue that the RPD’s decision is a final judgment and should not be used as notice for issues to be considered in a subsequent proceeding. ... The RAD comprehensively considered each of the Applicants’ grounds of appeal and set out its reasoning intelligibly. ...

The ID therefore considered Ms. Dayal as the sole sponsor when assessing the sponsorship application. ... Dayal had made insufficient concrete plans for financially supporting, housing, or caring for herself, her children, and the visa applicants post-divorce. [12]   The IAD next considered the evidence of domestic abuse and the best interests of her dependent children. ... While the IAD did not use the term “BIOC” throughout its reasons, the Minister submits it is clear such interests were taken into account, in particular when the IAD considered the impacts of an unstable source of income and concerns of future (un)employability. (3)   Analysis [30]   Kanthasamy changed the law on H&C. ...