Search - considered

Moreover, he claims that the losses in 2003 and 2004 from the provision of these publicly traded shares in those same years were considered as business gains and losses because he operated an investment business during those years as shown by the registration statement he produced.   ... On the contrary, the result of an operation is considered a business income (or loss) when the operation is related to a business concept, speculation or a commercial business or project ...

  [30]     There is nothing in the evidence from which I could conclude that in conducting that analysis the Minister had regard to irrelevant facts or placed excessive or inappropriate weight on the various factors considered. ... Those are objective facts, in addition to which the numerous general and often confused explanations, and the fact that witnesses were not called (co-workers, accountant, etc.) must also be considered. ...

., C M J Storage Ltd. and Codiac Drilling & Boring Ltd. can rely on section 156 of the Act since, according to the Minister, those appellants cannot be regarded as “specified members” of a “qualifying group” because they cannot be considered “closely related” corporations pursuant to section 128 of the Act ... In addition and as already alluded to, the Minister argues that the appellants Goldsboro, Martin, Pine Glen, Rockport, Bend, C M J and Codiac cannot rely on section 156 of the Act since none of those corporations can be regarded as “specified members” of a “qualifying group” because they cannot be considered “closely related” corporations pursuant to section 128 of the Act ...

       [11]          Counsel for the Respondent gleaned from the case law factors which are to be considered in determining whether gains or losses are of an income or a capital nature. ... It states that, in addition to the intention existing at the time of purchase, other factors may be considered in order to determine whether a loss or gain of principal from the disposition of a security is on income or capital account. ...

  [4] Justice Bowie in Drake at the end of paragraph 4 recognizes that an RRSP withdrawal cannot be considered to be “pension income” prior to its maturity. ... Without that exclusion being present these cases suggest that payments out of a RRIF can properly be considered to be pension income ...

Malone and considered fundamental in common law Canada, first, the language of the alleged settlor must be imperative; second, the subject matter or trust property must be certain; third, the objects of the trust must be certain. ...   [62]     The appeals are allowed, with costs, and the Appellants are considered to have realized a capital gain when they received net proceeds from the Trust due to the sale of the Canfish shares. ...

As the name suggests, a de facto director will be considered a director where, in effect, he usurps the position by engaging in acts that are normally reserved for directors, such as participating in meetings of the board of directors, signing resolutions of the board, making or taking part in management or disposition decisions, giving instructions on behalf of the company, holding himself out to third parties as a director, etc....    ...   A director who resigns, but in fact continues to act, and hold himself out to third parties, as a director of the company, risks being considered a de facto director despite that resignation, and, as such, remaining subject to the responsibilities that the law imposes on directors.   ...

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 ...   [35]     As formally worded, the applicable legislative provision is the following: "eligible individual" in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfills the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant, (c) is resident in Canada or, where the person is the cohabiting spouse or common-law partner of a person who is deemed under subsection 250(1) to be resident in Canada throughout the taxation year that includes that time, was resident in Canada in any preceding taxation year, (d) is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or 149(1)(b), and (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse or common-law partner is, a Canadian citizen or a person who (i) is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (ii) is a temporary resident within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, who was resident in Canada throughout the 18 month period preceding that time, or (iii) is a protected person within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (iv) was determined before that time to be a member of a class defined in the Humanitarian Designated Classes Regulations made under the Immigration Act, and for the purposes of this definition, (f) where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant’s female parent, the parent who primarily fulfills 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;   [36]     In the instant case, this Court reiterates that the conduct of both parents is beyond reproach, given all the constraints facing them in their respective settings as well as their professional obligations—and taking for granted that perfection in this regard does not exist ...

  [3]      In 2005, 75% of Florexpert's workers were considered employees, and 25% of them were considered independent contractors. ...

To that effect, subsection 248(1) of the Act provides for the following definition for the words “common-law partner”:   "common-law partner", with respect to a taxpayer at any time, means a person who cohabits at that time in a conjugal relationship with the taxpayer and   (a) has so cohabited with the taxpayer for a continuous period of at least one year, or   (b) would be the parent of a child of whom the taxpayer is a parent, if this Act were read without reference to paragraphs 252(1)(c) and (e) and subparagraph 252(2)(a)(iii),   and for the purposes of this definition, where at any time the taxpayer and the person cohabit in a conjugal relationship, they are, at any particular time after that time, deemed to be cohabiting in a conjugal relationship unless they were not cohabiting at the particular time for a period of at least 90 days that includes the particular time because of a breakdown of their conjugal relationship; [6]   [18]     T he “cohabiting spouse or common-law partner” is defined for matter pertaining to the equivalent-to-spouse credit, the GSTC and the CCTB under section 122.6 of the Act as follows:   "cohabiting spouse or common-law partner" of an individual at any time means the person who at that time is the individual’s spouse or common-law partner and who is not at that time living separate and apart from the individual and, for the purpose of this definition, a person shall not be considered to be living separate and apart from an individual at any time unless they were living separate and apart at that time, because of a breakdown of their marriage or common-law partnership, for a period of at least 90 days that includes that time; [7]   [19]     T he notion of “cohabiting in a conjugal relationship” is not specifically defined in the Act. ... H, [10]   the Supreme Court of Canada stated:   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. ...