Search - considered

That is, it seems the Niles case is properly relied on by Respondent's counsel in that, as in Niles, all factors relating to the payment arise in the case at bar in respect of or in connection with the loss of employment and the settlement was to compensate for that. [24]     In Jolivet, Justice Lamarre considered a claim that amounts paid not to pursue any claim under the Canada Labour Code, the Employment Standards Act (Ontario) and other similar legislation was not a retiring allowance. ...

The notices of assessment for the years concerned were made using the net worth method. [2]      The assessments dated September 22, 2003, for 1998, 1999 and 2000 are based on the following assumptions of fact: [TRANSLATION] UNREPORTED INCOME (a)         in his returns of income for the 1998, 1999 and 2000 taxation years, the Appellant reported the following total income: Year 1998 1999 2000 Total income $7,273 $8,326 $9,124 (b)         during the taxation years in issue, the Appellant ran a business operating as Garage Michel Lefrançois (hereinafter the "business"); (c)         during the taxation years in issue, the Appellant was the only person operating his business; (d)         the Appellant had been buying and selling vehicles for some 15 years; (e)         the Appellant did not bill his customers; (f)          an audit of the Appellant's income and expenditures was conducted by an auditor of the Minister for the 1998, 1999 and 2000 taxation years; (g)         the auditor chose to use the indirect audit method of calculating the difference in net worth for the following reasons: (i)           the bookkeeping and records were deficient; (ii)          significant assets had been purchased during the period audited relative to the low income reported by the Appellant; (h)         by the net worth method, the auditor determined that the Appellant had failed to include the following amounts in his returns of income for the 1998, 1999 and 2000 taxation years (see details in Schedule II): [TRANSLATION] Description 1998 1999 2000 Net business income Taxable capital gain Total $19,395          0 $ $19,395 $4,440 $13,500 $17,940 $9,895        0 $ $9,895 Short-Term Assets (i)          the Appellant had two bank accounts, the balances of which at the end of each of the years were as follows: Description 1997 1998 1999 2000 Caisse populaire de l'Ange-Gardien Caisse populaire de Beauport Total $10,837 $1,396 $12,233 $6       $843 $849 $1,159 $2,262 $3,851 $935 ($10) $925 (j)          the Minister's auditor analyzed the transactions conducted in the Appellant's accounts; (k)         at the start of the audit, the Appellant told the Minister's auditor that he kept amounts of approximately $1,000 to $1,500 at home; (l)          the auditor therefore considered that he had cash on hand of $1,500 for each of the years 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000; (m)        the auditor had no convincing reason to allow a larger amount of cash on hand for each of the years referred to in the previous paragraph; Chris-Craft Boat (n)         in 1985, the Appellant bought a used Chris-Craft boat for $5,000; (o)         on March 26, 1999, the Appellant bought a 1989 Triple E- Regency C675X camper and assigned in return a trailer bearing the Chris-Craft boat; (p)         on the basis of the information provided, the Minister's auditor set the selling price of the boat at $23,000; (q)         the Minister's auditor determined a taxable capital gain of $13,500 [($23,000- $5,000) x 75%]; (r)         the Appellant mentioned that he himself had repaired the boat; (s)         the objections officer estimated the cost of the parts purchased to repair the boat at $9,000 and increased the adjusted cost base of the boat to $14,000; (t)          the taxable capital gain realized was thus determined to be $6,750 [($23,000- $14,000) x 75%]; Chevrolet Pick-up Truck (u)         on June 4, 1997, the Appellant purchased a Chevrolet pick-up truck; (v)         the Minister's auditor estimated the cost of the truck at $23,000; (w)        the Appellant filed a copy of the truck purchase invoice with the objections officer; (x)         the objections officer increased the purchase price of the truck to $25,867 to take sales taxes into account; (y)         the truck was sold for $19,000 in 1999; (z)         a $4,000 loss was determined by the Minister's auditor; (aa)       based on the information provided to the objections officer, the loss incurred by the Appellant in 1999 was corrected to $6,867; 1994 Oldsmobile Car (bb)       on February 16, 1998, the Appellant bought a 1994 Oldsmobile car; (cc)       based on the information provided, the Minister's auditor estimated the cost of the car at $13,500; (dd)       the Appellant filed a copy of the car purchase invoice with the objections officer; (ee)       the objections officer increased the purchase price of the car to $14,953 to take sales taxes into account; Triple E- Regency Camper (ff)         the Appellant purchased a 1989 Triple E- Regency C675X camper, the delivery date of which was March 26, 1999; (gg)       the Appellant paid the vendor $8,000 and assigned in return a trailer bearing the Chris-Craft boat, for which the vendor credited an amount of $20,999; (hh)       the Minister's auditor estimated the cost of the camper at $30,995; (ii)         the Appellant filed a copy of the camper purchase invoice with the objections officer; (jj)         the objections officer reduced the purchase price of the camper to $29,950 based on the information supplied by the Appellant; (kk)       on July 25, 2000, the camper was exchanged for a Catalina camper; (ll)         a $3,995 loss was determined by the Minister's auditor; (mm)     based on the information provided to the objections officer, the loss incurred by the Appellant in 2000 was corrected to $2,950; 1990 Catalina Camper (nn)       on July 25, 2000, the Appellant exchanged the 1989 Triple E- Regency camper for a 1990 Catalina camper; (oo)       the Minister's auditor set the purchase price of the Catalina camper at $27,000; (pp)       as the Appellant had paid the vendor $8,000 in addition to the Chris-Craft boat and trailer, for which the vendor had credited an amount of $20,999, the objections officer set the purchase price of the Catalina camper at $28,999; Gasoline Expenses (qq)       on the basis of the information obtained, the Minister's auditor estimated the following amounts in respect of gasoline expenses for the various motor vehicles used by the Appellant for his personal use: Description 1998 1999 2000 1994 Oldsmobile S-10 Pick-up Chris-Craft boat Other Total $2,340 $609 $4,540 $         0 $ 7,489 $2,340 $148 $0 $ 2,080 $ 4,568 $2,340 $0 $0 $ 3,580 $ 5,920 (rr)        based on the additional information provided to the objections officer, the following amendments were made to the gasoline expenses stated in the previous paragraph: Description 1998 1999 2000 (Reductions) 1994 Oldsmobile Chris-Craft boat Other Total ($3,210) ($2,270)        $0 ($5,480) ($3,210) $0 ($1,040) ($4,250) ($3,210) $0 ($2,938) ($6,148) (ss)        the facts stated in subparagraphs 30(s), (t), (w), (x), (aa), (dd), (ee), (ii), (jj), (mm), (pp) and (rr) were assumed for the first time when the reassessments of September 22, 2003, were made for the 1998, 1999 and 2000 taxation years. ...

He said that he considered that the way in which a company chose to advertise was a business decision and that he would have seen no reason to disallow it. ...

  [29]     With respect to whether the Appellant was a director of Company 9046, section 62 of An Act respecting the Legal publicity of sole proprietorships, partnerships and legal persons, which reads as follows, must be considered:               The information relating to each registrant is proof of its contents in favour of third persons in good faith from the date on which it is entered in the statement of information. ...

Compliance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act is the only criterion that must be considered in determining whether an assessment is well founded.  ...

Bertin Ouellet had owned a 1984 Mercury Lynx (from 1996/05/28 to 1999/11/05- probable date of the discarding by the police), a 1986 Toyota Corolla (purchased on 1999/12/01), a Pontiac Sunbird (from 1999/11/05 to 1999/11/18), and a 1997 Honda Civic (from 1998/11/04 to 2001/10/01). m)         These vehicles are considered subcompact vehicles. n)          In 1999 and 2000, Mr. ...

When the Appellant's personal and financial involvement in the business is considered, we conclude that it was a business operated in partnership rather than by an employer and her employee. [33]     The circumstances around the Appellant's employment, analyzed in light of these various tests, lead to the inevitable conclusion that a substantially similar contract of employment would not have been entered into by him and his employer if they had been at arm's length. ...

From the outset, she has always been paid the same wages that had been established on the basis of her needs; the amount was more than she earned previously, and she had more freedom. [17]     The worker claimed that, with her signing authority at the bank, she could conclude the transactions she considered important without consulting with her mother. ...

Accordingly, it was guided by these principles that we considered the two cases before us for which the facts are relatively simple. [33]     The Federal Court of Appeal, in Pérusse v. ...

Despite the initial agreement between the Appellant and the Worker, Rose-Hélène Drolet, that no deductions should be made from her remuneration since she considered herself to be "self-employed", the latter applied for employment insurance benefits at the end of her contract with the Appellant; 11.        ...