Search - considered

" [22]          When the subjective elements of the standard of care are considered it is evident that the Appellant was almost ideally qualified to prevent the failures which occurred. ...

The last ground was quite properly abandoned by counsel at the trial. [7]            At trial, counsel for the Respondent took the position that the partnership unit could not be considered a source of income to the Appellant because he could have had no reasonable expectation of a profit in his hands, that is at the investor level, from rental income, given the very large financing costs. ...

In addition to the foregoing seven reasons, there is one other factor to be considered. ...

As an alternative I considered leaving paragraphs 1 to 4, which are purely formal and introductory so that the appellant could amend. ...

He said that they must review the health care records, take a careful history from the patient, perform a careful physical examination, review all appropriate laboratory and x-ray studies and arrive at a considered opinion followed by writing a report on their findings. [10]          Dr. ...

Subsection 118.4(1) reads as follows: "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. ...

The instrument must therefore be considered authentic. I refuse to consider the deed of rectification and acquittance of October 30, 1997, to be valid evidence that can change the nature and content of the instrument of January 28, 1987. [29]          This conclusion means that I do not have to deal with counsel for the respondent's alternative argument. [30]          Since the value of the property as established by the Minister is not contested, it is my view that the assessment under section 160 of the Act is correct. [31]          In light of the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed, with costs to the Respondent. ...

THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS [3]      The Appellant submits that all of the assessments at issue in this appeal involve individuals who were not in insurable employment as defined by the Employment Insurance Act and Regulations. [4]      All of the assessments at issue in this appeal involve assessments on behalf of the individuals who must properly be considered to be "operators of a business" and therefore not in "insurable employment". [5]      The Appellant has also argued in the alternative if the owner-operator and lease-operators are found to be in insurable employment and if the assessments were based upon the owner's or lease-operator's gross revenue without appropriate deductions for expenses such as vehicle insurance, bookkeeping, dispatch, parking, training and marketing fees, the assessments should be referred to the Minister for rectification in that the assessments should be based on net revenue. ...

In 1992, 1993 and 1994 the Appellant's chief source of income was neither farming nor a combination of farming and some other source of income. [24] With respect to issues (b) and (c), subsection 13(33) of the Income Tax Act reads: For greater certainty, where a person acquires a depreciable property for consideration that can reasonably be considered to include a transfer of property, the portion of the cost to the person of the depreciable property attributable to the transfer shall not exceed the fair market value of the transferred property. ...

ISSUE: [2] The issue is whether the Appellant is entitled to a deduction in respect of "Canadian Exploration Expense" ("E") in excess of amounts claimed and allowed by the Minister of National Revenue ("Minister"). [3] All references in these Reasons to an Act are in respect of the Income Tax Act. [4] E for the years in question was defined, inter alia, in subparagraph 66.1(6)(a)(iii) as (6) In this section and sections 66, 66.2 and 66.4 (a) "Canadian exploration expense" of a taxpayer means any outlay or expense made or incurred after May 6, 1974 that is (iii) any expense incurred by him for the purpose of determining the existence, location, extent or quality of a mineral resource in Canada including any expense incurred in the course of (A) prospecting, (B) carrying out geological, geophysical or geochemical surveys, (C) drilling by rotary, diamond, percussion or other methods, or (D) trenching, digging test pits and preliminary sampling, but not including (E) any Canadian development expense, or (F) any expense that may reasonably be considered to be related to a mine, whether or not owned by the taxpayer, that has come into production in reasonable commercial quantities or to be related to a potential or actual extension thereof,... [1] In subparagraph 66.1(a)(v) the definition of E also includes: any expense referred to in any of subparagraphs (i) to (iii.1) incurred by the taxpayer pursuant to an agreement in writing with a corporation, entered into before 1987, under which the taxpayer incurred the expense solely as consideration for shares, other than prescribed shares, of the capital stock of the corporation issued to him or any interest in such shares or right thereto. [2] [5] The taxation years appealed are 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988. [6] The computation of E will affect the amount of depletion and mining exploration depletion allowances. ...