Search - considered

Cozak to rely on the general wording contained in his memorandum of fact and law for his application to be considered, just as he was not free to object to the existence of this evidence in the file during the hearing on the merits. ... Cozak’s arguments on this point and the evidence that relates to them will not be considered in my analysis of this application. [23] In his memorandum, Mr. ...

The regulation, so far as it need be considered in the present matter, reads: “(b) Where manufacturers do not sell to independent wholesalers... licensed manufacturers may transfer their products to their unlicensed wholesale branches at the regular list selling prices to ordinary retailers who do not obtain any preferred prices or special discount of any kind, less 20%. the sales tax at the current rate to apply on the remainder. ... No such contention, it may be noted, was made in the pleadings, though it was obviously known that the respondent had relied upon the regulation in making payment of what it considered’ was due for sales tax. ...

The purpose of the refund provisions of Section 53(2) of the Income War Tax Act was considered by the President of this Court in Davidson v. ... I have read the Davidson case with care and cannot find therein any express statement that there was a right to recover an overpayment not disclosed by the assessment; that precise question does not seem to have been considered. ...

He believes that valid reasons for relocation that are specific to disability were not considered when Parliament imposed the 40-kilometre distance requirement. [36] The criteria at issue are found in the definition of an “eligible relocation” in subsection 248(1): eligible relocation  means a relocation of a taxpayer in respect of which the following apply: (a) the relocation occurs to enable the taxpayer (i) to carry on a business or to be employed at a location (in section 62 and this definition referred to as “the new work location”) that is, except if the taxpayer is absent from but resident in Canada, in Canada, or (ii) to be a student in full-time attendance enrolled in a program at a post-secondary level at a location of a university, college or other educational institution (in section 62 and this definition referred to as “the new work location”), (b) the taxpayer ordinarily resided before the relocation at a residence (in section 62 and this definition referred to as “the old residence”) and ordinarily resided after the relocation at a residence (in section 62 and this definition referred to as “the new residence”), (c) except if the taxpayer is absent from but resident in Canada, both the old residence and the new residence are in Canada, and (d) the distance between the old residence and the new work location is not less than 40 kilometres greater than the distance between the new residence and the new work location; [37] In considering the purpose and effect of this definition, the Federal Court of Appeal recognized that an employee may have to move in order to remain within a practical commuting distance of a new job. [20] The Federal Court of Appeal also recognized that Parliament limited the deduction to moves that bring a taxpayer at least 40 kilometres closer to the new work or school location, in order to prevent the provision from being invoked when a taxpayer simply desires a change in residence. [21] [38] Dr. ... Appendix “A” Medical expenses 118.2(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a medical expense of an individual is an amount paid […] (i) for, or in respect of, an artificial limb, an iron lung, a rocking bed for poliomyelitis victims, a wheel chair, crutches, a spinal brace, a brace for a limb, an ileostomy or colostomy pad, a truss for hernia, an artificial eye, a laryngeal speaking aid, an aid to hearing, an artificial kidney machine, phototherapy equipment for the treatment of psoriasis or other skin disorders, or an oxygen concentrator, for the patient; […] (l.2) for reasonable expenses relating to renovations or alterations to a dwelling of the patient who lacks normal physical development or has a severe and prolonged mobility impairment, to enable the patient to gain access to, or to be mobile or functional within, the dwelling, provided that such expenses (i) are not of a type that would typically be expected to increase the value of the dwelling, and (ii) are of a type that would not normally be incurred by persons who have normal physical development or who do not have a severe and prolonged mobility impairment; (l.21) for reasonable expenses relating to the construction of the principal place of residence of the patient who lacks normal physical development or has a severe and prolonged mobility impairment, that can reasonably be considered to be incremental costs incurred to enable the patient to gain access to, or to be mobile or functional within, the patient’s principal place of residence, provided that such expenses (i) are not of a type that would typically be expected to increase the value of the dwelling, and (ii) are of a type that would not normally be incurred by persons who have normal physical development or who do not have a severe and prolonged mobility impairment; […] (l.5) for reasonable moving expenses (within the meaning of subsection 62(3), but not including any expense deducted under section 62 for any taxation year) of the patient, who lacks normal physical development or has a severe and prolonged mobility impairment, incurred for the purpose of the patient’s move to a dwelling that is more accessible by the patient or in which the patient is more mobile or functional, if the total of the expenses claimed under this paragraph by all persons in respect of the move does not exceed $2,000; […] (m) for any device or equipment for use by the patient that (i) is of a prescribed kind, (ii) is prescribed by a medical practitioner, (iii) is not described in any other paragraph of this subsection, and (iv) meets such conditions as are prescribed as to its use or the reason for its acquisition; to the extent that the amount so paid does not exceed the amount, if any, prescribed in respect of the device or equipment; Moving expenses 62 (1) There may be deducted in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year amounts paid by the taxpayer as or on account of moving expenses incurred in respect of an eligible relocation, to the extent that (a) they were not paid on the taxpayer’s behalf in respect of, in the course of or because of, the taxpayer’s office or employment; (b) they were not deductible because of this section in computing the taxpayer’s income for the preceding taxation year; (c) the total of those amounts does not exceed (i) in any case described in subparagraph (a)(i) of the definition eligible relocation in subsection 248(1), the total of all amounts, each of which is an amount included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the taxation year from the taxpayer’s employment at a new work location or from carrying on the business at the new work location, or because of subparagraph 56(1)(r)(v) in respect of the taxpayer’s employment at the new work location, and (ii) in any case described in subparagraph (a)(ii) of the definition eligible relocation in subsection 248(1), the total of amounts included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year because of paragraphs 56(1)(n) and (o); and (d) all reimbursements and allowances received by the taxpayer in respect of those expenses are included in computing the taxpayer’s income. ...

McLaughlin said the appellant company would be considered as participating in the contract and that he would endeavour to borrow the required $200,000 on his own account on a temporary basis. ... I agreed with him over the ’phone they would be considered as participants in the contract and that I would see what I could do to secure, to borrow this $200,000.00 from the bank on my own account on a temporary basis, which I was successful in being able to do, and I so notified Mr. ...

What is the line which separates the two classes of cases may be difficult to define, and each case must be considered according to its facts; the question to be determined being—Is the sum of gain that has been made a mere enhancement of value by realizing a security, or is it a gain made in an operation of business in carrying out a scheme for profit-making? ... There is no evidence as to whether or not the question of taking these leases was ever considered at any meeting of the directors of the appellant company, nor was any evidence offered of any directors’ minute relating to them or to the intention or purpose of the company in taking them. ...

On April 4, 1951, notification was given by the Minister under Section 53 of the Act that, having considered the assessment and the facts and reasons set forth in the notice of objection, he confirms the assessment as having been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, particularly on the ground that the taxpayer is not entitled to average his income in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 39 of the Act, having not filed returns for the years 1946 and 1947 as required by the Act. ... Counsel indicated that this point was considered by the Chairman of the Board and Mr. ...

Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Minister based his depreciation allowance on the cost of the buildings to their former owner because he considered that the proviso in Section 6(1)(n) was applicable, that he was mistaken in this view since it was not applicable by reason of the fact that the aggregate amount of the deductions which had been allowed in respect of their depreciation was not equal to their cost to the former owner, that in considering the proviso applicable when it was not he had taken an irrelevant matter into account and had not acted on proper principles and that under the authority of the decision in Pioneer Laundry and Dry Cleaners Limited v. ... Fisher, following the earlier decision by the Board in the Stovel Press Limited case (supra), considered that the Pioneer Laundry case (supra) supported his decision. ...

Tuharsky, was retained, she considered that she was bound by the existing order, and similarly did not ask to be provided with copies of the records at issue or the Minister’s confidential submissions on a counsel’s eyes only basis. [14] This became apparent at the outset of the hearing of this application, when the Court became aware that Ms. ... For example, in Imai, Justice Pamel considered the exemption in paragraph 20(1)(c) of the ATIA and concluded on his review of the information in the document that it was “self-evident” that disclosure would compromise the third party’s competitive position: Imai at para 85. ...

Analysis [20] In Waldron v The Queen, [39] this Court considered the two-year deadline in the Excise Tax Act for filing a new housing rebate application where an officer of Revenue Canada (predecessor of the CRA) had made a representation about the filing deadline that was not entirely accurate. ... (Emphasis added) … [7] The issue of estoppel has been considered in a number of cases and the principle which generally can be taken therefrom is that no representation involving an interpretation of law by a servant or officer of the Crown can bind it. ...