Search - considered

At least two situations occur to me where a claim by a supplier might be considered:   (a)      where a supplier does not collect GST from a recipient in respect of an exempt or zero-rated supply and then, erroneously, remits from its own funds an amount as GST to the government.   ...

Furthermore, as Judge Mogan said, even if a FMV could be determined, this right would not constitute "consideration given for the property". 28   [49] Not only does this interpretation seem to me to be in greater harmony with the language of section 160 of the Act, but it is unavoidable in light of the interpretative presumption that the law is coherent and systematic. 29 Section 160 must be considered as a whole if we are to determine its scope. ...

Traditionally, if the worker owns or controls the assets and is responsible for their operation and maintenance, he would likely be considered an independent contractor. ...

The Court considered the workers' testimony highly credible.   [6]               The Federal Court of Appeal has on several occasions defined the role conferred by the Act on judges of the Tax Court of Canada. ...

  [24]     I now subscribe to the preliminary remarks made at paragraph 29 of the Federal Court ' s decision in Mercier, supra:   At this point, the specific characteristics of the Income Tax Act should be considered. ...

The Minister was satisfied that it was not reasonable to conclude that the Appellant and the payor would have entered into a substantially similar contract if they had been dealing with each other at arm's length, having regard to the following circumstances:   (a)               the payor operated a business excavating and installing septic beds on agricultural and residential properties; (admitted)   (b)              the payor stated to the Respondent's agent that he had operated the business for 40 years; (admitted)   (c)               according to the payor, the business had sales of roughly $200,000 per year; (admitted)   (d)              the Appellant was born on January 5, 1987; (admitted)   (e)               the Appellant was hired as a labourer; (admitted)   (f)                according to the payor, the Appellant's duties consisted in driving the steam shovel, the bulldozer and the ten-wheel truck, doing excavation, but never doing finishing work, and doing mechanical maintenance such as greasing; (admitted)   (g)               on July 10, 2007, the Appellant stated to a representative of the Respondent that he considered himself to be a jack of all trades taking instructions from the payor, his uncle Serge Laroche or his father Réal Laroche; (admitted)   (h)               on July 10, 2007, the Appellant stated to a representative of the Respondent that if the weather was good he helped in the agricultural excavating; if it rained, he repaired the machinery in the garage; (admitted)   (i)                 also on July 10, 2007, the Appellant stated to a representative of the Respondent that he sometimes worked 30 hours a week, sometimes 32, sometimes 28, depending on the weather; (admitted)   (j)                 on December 21, 2006, the Appellant stated in his claim for unemployment benefits that he worked 40 hours a week, Monday to Friday, eight hours a day; (admitted)   (k)               in the payor's payroll journal, the Appellant was always recorded as working 30 hours every week, for 33 consecutive weeks between May 1 and December 16, 2006; (admitted)   (l)                 on December 21, 2006, the Appellant stated in his claim for unemployment benefits that he had 990 hours of insurable employment; for an initial claim, the Appellant needed 910 hours to qualify; (admitted)   (m)            on February 14, 2007, the payor stated to a representative of the Respondent that he would have hired someone other than the Appellant when needed, maybe half the time; (denied as written)   (n)               the duration of the Appellant's employment is unreasonable; (denied)   (o)              according to the payor, the Appellant was paid $10 per hour; (admitted)   (p)              in the payor's payroll journal, the Appellant was recorded as being paid $312 per week, for a total of $10,296 for 33 consecutive weeks; (admitted)   (q)              according to the 10 cheques issued to the Appellant by the payor  — $800 on June 30, $500 on July 14, $801 on August 1, $500 on September 1, $600 on September 25, $600 on October 5, $300 on October 15, $600 on October 26, $600 on November 15, and $533.83 on November 17 — the total earnings paid to the Appellant by cheque were $5,834.83 [sic]; (admitted)   (r)                the worker was paid irregularly and sporadically; (denied as written)   (s)               the cheques issued to the Appellant by the payor did not correspond to the amounts recorded in the payor's payroll journal; (admitted)   (t)                 a worker dealing with an employer at arm's length would not have agreed to receive his earnings in an irregular manner; (denied)   (u)               according to the payor, the Appellant received cash payments in the early part of his period of employment; (admitted)   (v)               on February 20, 2007, the payor gave the Respondent a document showing cash payments totalling $2,975 between May 13, 2006, and December 16, 2006; (admitted)   (w)             according to the document provided by the payor on February 20, 2007, the Appellant was short $1,486.82 to reach the amount recorded in the payor's payroll journal: the difference between $10,296 and $5,834.83 [sic] (the cheques) plus $2,975 (cash); (denied as written)   (x)               a worker dealing with an employer at arm's length would not have agreed not to receive all of his earnings; (denied)   (y)               the Appellant's cheques were cashed late; (denied as written)   (z)               on June 12, 2007, the payor stated to a representative of the Respondent that he had told the Appellant he would pay him when he had the money; (admitted)   (aa)           on July 11, 2007, the payor stated to a representative of the Respondent that he had asked the Appellant six times not to cash his paycheque; (admitted)   (bb)         a worker dealing with an employer at arm's length would have cashed his paycheques without delay; (denied)   (cc)          the terms and conditions of the Appellant's remuneration were unreasonable; (denied)   (dd)         on February 1, 2007, the payor stated to a representative of the Respondent that he wanted to hire the Appellant to show him the work; (denied as written)   (ee)           on February 1, 2007, the payor declared to a representative of the Respondent that the Appellant watched what the payor did in order to learn and practice; (denied as written)   (ff)             on February 1, 2007, the payor stated to a representative of the Respondent that the Appellant always had to be accompanied by either Serge Laroche or the other worker, or by the payor himself, since a young person cannot be left alone with the heavy machinery because it is too dangerous; (denied as written)   (gg)          on February 14, 2007, the payor stated to a representative of the Respondent that he did not really need the worker; he gave him work because he did not want him hanging out with five or six other guys and doing things he should not be doing; (denied)   (hh)          on July 10, 2007, the Appellant stated to a representative of the Respondent that if his grandfather had had to hire someone else, that person would have had to have experience, and it takes time to learn this work; (admitted)   (ii)               at the time of the period in issue, the Appellant did not have the driver's licence and driving experience needed to drive a ten‑wheel truck; (denied as written)   (jj)               the nature and importance of the work and the terms and conditions of the Appellant's work were not reasonable; (denied)   (kk)          the Minister is satisfied that the terms and conditions of this work could not apply if the parties were dealing with each other at arm's length. ...

  [12]    Nevertheless, the Appellant contended in her notice of appeal that she considered herself self-employed as far as her commissions on sales to her personal clients were concerned. ...

He therefore notified him that his letter dated March 13, 1991, would be considered a contract, and, in that regard, he enclosed an invoice for $53,470, plus tax, covering professional fees, research and pre‑scripting. ...

Three essential components must be alleged in pleading misrepresentation:   (i)           the representation;   (ii)         the fact of its having been made; and   (iii)        its falsity. 7     The function of particulars was considered by the Federal Court of Appeal in Gulf Canada Limited v. ...

Lastly, the Appellant must have made a decision that was not merely considered, and that was not dependent on future events ...