Search - considered

As Bénard, J.S.C. noted in her Judgment, it is regrettable that the Court of first instance did not have all the necessary material before it so that all relevant aspects could have been considered at the divorce hearing in 2001. ...

He then went on to review a number of alternate calculations for the damage award for this unlawful cancellation before settling on the method he considered to be the proper measure for these damages. ...

ANALYSIS AND DECISION [8]      Subsection 118.3(1) reads as follows: 118.3(1) Where (a)         an individual has a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment, (a.1)      the effects of the impairment are such that the individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted or would be markedly restricted but for therapy that (i)          is essential to sustain a vital function of the individual, (ii)         is required to be administered at least three times each week for a total duration averaging not less than 14 hours a week, and (iii)        cannot reasonably be expected to be of significant benefit to persons who are not so impaired, (a.2)      in the case of (i)          a sight impairment, a medical doctor or an optometrist, (i.1)       a speech impairment, a medical doctor or a speech-language pathologist, (ii)         a hearing impairment, a medical doctor or an audiologist, (iii)        an impairment with respect to an individual's ability in feeding and dressing themself, or in walking, a medical doctor or an occupational therapist, (iv)        an impairment with respect to an individual's ability in perceiving, thinking and remembering, a medical doctor or a psychologist, and (v)         an impairment not referred to in any of subparagraphs (i) to (iv), a medical doctor has certified in prescribed form that the impairment is a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment the effects of which are such that the individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted or would be markedly restricted but for therapy referred to in paragraph (a.1), (b)         the individual has filed for a taxation year with the Minister the certificate described in paragraph (a.2), and (c)         no amount in respect remuneration for an attendant or care in a nursing home, in respect of the individual, is included in calculating a deduction under section 118.2 (otherwise than because of paragraph 118.2(2)(b.1)) for the year by the individual or by any other person, there may be deducted in computing the individual's tax payable under this Part for the year the amount determined by the formula A X (B + C) where A          is the appropriate percentage for the year, B           is $6,000, and C          is (a)         where the individual has no attained the age of 18 years before the end of the year, the amount, if any, by which (i)          $3,500 exceeds (ii)         the amount, if any, by which (A)        the total of all amounts each of which is an amount paid in the year for the care or supervision of the individual and included in computing a deduction under section 63, 64 or 118.2 for a taxation year exceeds (B)        $2,050, and (b)         in any other case, zero. [9]      Subsection 118.4(1) reads as follows: 118.4(1) For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a)         an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or can reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b)         an individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c)         a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i)          perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii)         feeding and dressing oneself, (iii)        speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv)        hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v)         eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi)        walking; and (d)         for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. [10]     In this situation the Minister concluded that based on his review and analysis there was an indication that the Appellant can perform the basic activities of daily living without requiring an inordinate amount of time. [11]     Subsection 118.4(1) of the Act states that a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means           (i)       perceiving, thinking and remembering;           (ii)       feeding and dressing oneself; (iii)      speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual; (iv)      hearing so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual; (v)      eliminating (bowel and bladder functions); or (vi)      walking. [12]     In considering the claim made by the Appellant we are talking about the basic activities of " perceiving, thinking and remembering ". [13]     In Radage v. ...

They are more properly considered withdrawals of capital. [4] Interpretation Bulletin IT-185R goes on to state as follows: 5           The treatment of losses resulting from theft, defalcation or embezzlement by senior employees and managers depends upon the circumstances of each case: See Cassidy's Ltd. v. ...

Because to make a decision like that (punishment), some important points that must be considered have been ignored, in my opinion. ...

The Federal Court is the appropriate forum for collection issues dealing with federal tax. [26]     The second issue raised by the taxpayer concerns the testimony given by the appeals officer who considered the notice of objection. ...

It is difficult to believe that the office was as much of as a mess as he described it. [11]     The other factors that the appeals officer considered can be summarized as follows: [TRANSLATION] The Appellant was hired on September 7, 2002, when her employment insurance benefits had run out. ...

The non-working days cannot be considered for purposes of insurability as they are not days when work is performed and for which remuneration is paid. ...

On this footing and having considered the evidence of Ms. Boury and Ms. ...

Karimi, replaced her during that period. [16]     Furthermore, some other facts that were apparently not considered by the Minister appear to me to be important. ...