Search - considered

Canada, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 3 (“ Lipson ”) as confirming that the direct and immediate use of borrowed money is the only factor to be considered in ascertaining the purpose of the loan ... In light of Singleton, it would be difficult to suggest that this series of transactions would be considered artificial or lacking commercial reality in some fatal way. ...

There are many cases in which the matter has been considered both in this court and the Federal Court of Appeal. ... 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. ...

Unlike the earlier Companies Act, R.S.B.C. 1924, c. 38, that was considered in British Columbia v. ... There are no facts before me as to whether the Minister considered that there was additional tax owing by the company beyond that already assessed. ...

Therefore, the elements of control in this case cannot reasonably be considered to be inconsistent with the parties' understanding that the dancers were independent contractors.   67.    The same can be said of all of the factors, considered in their entirety, in the context of the nature of the activities of the RWB and the work of the dancers engaged by the RWB. ...

.;    (agreed)   (d)                the Appellant is the son of the Shareholder; (agreed)   (e)                 the Appellant and the Payor were related to each other within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5 th Supp.) c.1, as amended (the “ Act ”);   (agreed)   (f)                  the Appellant was hired as a labourer/manager;   (disagreed)   (g)                 the Appellant’s duties included manual labour, operating equipment, picking up supplies, preparing bids, getting mail, calculating payroll, distributing paycheques and paying bills;  (agreed)   (h)                 the Shareholder was out of the country for a portion of the Period; (agreed)   (i)                   the Appellant earned a set wage of $15.00 per hour which was eventually increased to $20.00 per hour;  (agreed)   (j)                  the Payor determined the Appellant’s wage rate;  (disagreed)   (k)                the Payor did not pay the Appellant on a regular basis; (agreed with explanation)   (l)                   the Payor did not remunerate the Appellant in the same manner as the Payor’s other employees;  (disagreed)   (m)               the Payor provided the Appellant with company funds to distribute wages to other employees and pay company bills;  (agreed)   (n)                 the Payor issued the following cheques to the Appellant: (agreed)               Date                                                     Date             Issued                          Amount             Cashed                                       Nov 20, 2001              $1,084.30        Nov 23, 2001                                     Dec 10, 2001               $   861.40        Dec 11, 2001                                     Jan 2, 2002                  $   876.00        Jan 25, 2002                                     May 27, 2002              $1,000.00        Jun 6, 2002 (loan)                                     Jun 14, 2002                $1,049.65        Jun 20, 2002                                     Jul 2, 2002                   $1,082.82        Jul 4, 2002                                     Jul 12, 2002                 $   575.00        Jul 16, 2002                                     Jul 16, 2002                 $   523.08        Jul 16, 2002                                     Jul 26, 2002                 $1,044.69        Jul 26, 2002                                     Jul 31, 2002                 $1,044.69        Aug 2, 2002                                     Nov 14, 2002              $9,141.62        Nov 14, 2002 (included other workers’ pay)                                                 Jan 2, 2003                  $2,871.51        Jan 7, 2003      (included expenses)                               Jan 2, 2003                  $1,123.99        Jan 7, 2003      (expenses)     (o)                the Appellant also received advances;              (agreed with explanation)   (p)                the Payor also made a couple of direct transfers to the Appellant’s bank account;                                     (agreed with explanation)   (q)                the Appellant provided unpaid services to the Payor;             (disagreed)   (r)                  the Payor issued a Record of Employment to the Appellant on December 16, 2002 which contained the following information:   First day worked                      September 15, 2001 Last day worked                      December 14, 2002 Occupation                               Manager Total insurable hours                 2103 hours Total insurable hours                 $39,660   (agreed with explanation)   (s)                 the Appellant filed an Application for Benefits on February 24, 2003 which contained the following information:                           Job title                                    Manager                         First day worked                      October 15, 2001                         Last day worked                      December 14, 2002                         Normal earnings                       $20/hour                         Normal hours               40 hours/week, 5 days/week                           (agreed with explanation)   (t)                  the Payor issued T4s to the Appellant which contained the following income:   2001                        $  4,446 2002                        $15,920            (agreed)     (u)                 the Payor’s payroll records indicated the following:   Appellant’s first day of work     November 8, 2001 Appellant did not work             Jan, Feb, Mar,                                                             Apr, and Aug 2002   Total hours worked                              1290 hours             (agreed)   (v)        when the Appellant worked at the Payor’s job site, he normally worked from sunrise to sunset, 6 or 7 days a week;       (agreed)   (w)       the Appellant only worked part-time for the Payor in January, February, March, April and August 2002;  (agreed)   (x)        the Payor supervised the Appellant;     (disagreed)   (y)        the Payor provided the tools and equipment required including a truck, compaction equipment, survey, generators, welders, scaffolding, pumps, heaters and a loader;    (agreed)   (z)        the Appellant provided his own vehicle;   (agreed)   (aa)             the Payor reimbursed the Appellant for business expenses incurred;               (agreed)   (bb)            the Payor paid all operating expenses included meals and accommodations for its employees;  (agreed)   (cc)             the Appellant did not replace anyone when he was hired and he was not replaced when he left;  (agreed with explanation)   (dd)            the Appellant was employed under a contract of service by the Payor;  (agreed)   (ee)             the Minister considered all of the relevant facts that were made available to the Minister, including the remuneration paid, the terms and conditions, the duration and the nature and importance of the work performed, and   (ff)                the Minister was satisfied that it was reasonable to conclude that the Appellant and the Payor would not have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing with each other at arm’s length.   ... He considered that the decision on the appeal to the Minister was made prior to the facts being provided. ...

(as he then was) considered, in obiter, the question of when a director ceases to be a de facto director and stated:   The final question is whether, if the appellant was a de facto director, he ceased to be one over two years before the assessment on September 18, 1995. ... As the term implies, a de facto director is considered to be a director if he acts as such by doing acts normally reserved for directors; for example, participating in board meetings, signing board resolutions, making or participating in administrative decisions or decisions to sell, giving instructions in the name of the corporation, representing to third parties that he is a director, etc. ...

Neilson considered himself a “dinosaur” as he had neither qualification, notwithstanding his participation in creating such credentialing programs. ... Canada [2] to suggest that the cost of developing software products, including acquiring a source code, can be considered a current expense. ...

  [29] Therefore parliament must have intended that students who leave home to attend university on a full‑time basis would be considered to be ordinarily resident at the university (or other location) even though the accommodation at which they reside would only be temporary and they would be returning home at the completion of the term or year. ... In this situation, this is simply too long a period of absence to be considered to still be ordinarily resident in Quispamsis during this time ...

In order to resolve this issue, the cases have held that the total relationship between the parties and the combined force of the whole scheme of operations must be considered in order to resolve the central or fundamental question as to whether the worker was performing his services for the appellant as a person in business on his own account or was performing them in the capacity of an employee. ... The trial judge should have considered the Wiebe Door factors in the light of this uncontradicted evidence and asked himself whether, on balance, the facts were consistent with the conclusion that the dancers were self-employed, as the parties understood to be the case, or were more consistent with the conclusion that the dancers were employees.  ...

She explained the work that she had done and emphasized the facts she considered in making her determination ...   [25]          In some situations where the Appellant is not represented, the Appeals Officer must make a concerted effort to ensure that all the relevant facts have been considered because such an Appellant may very well be unable to recognize the elements relevant to his or her file.  ...