Search - considered

The comparison of the Intervener's status with that of the Appellant corporation's other employees is irrelevant. [59]     In conclusion, it appears from the evidence that the person handling the Appellant's case considered all the relevant facts and that the result of that person's analysis is entirely reasonable. [60]     The Appellant's main allegations, in particular that Pierre Moisan enjoyed considerable flexibility and independence and that he was engaged in a number of activities, such as construction, hunting, snowmobiling and administration, were neither relevant nor determinative. [61]     Based on the number of shares they held, Pierre Moisan's brother and brother-in-law could have intervened at any time to correct the situation, if it had not been consistent with the expectations of the corporation they controlled. [62]     The fact that they did not intervene does not in any way mean that they had waived that power conferred on them by their shares. ...

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.             ...

[24]     Paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (the " Act ") provides that in order for a taxpayer to make a deduction from income, the deduction must be shown to have been made or incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property. [25]     In determining whether the Appellants could be considered to be carrying on a business the following points should be noted:-        The so-called "marketing expenses" were never paid and "marketing" never took place.-        Partnerships were never formed because neither Eizenga nor Sylvester (the principles of ABO) had the intention to carry on business in common with the investors.-        Eizenga and Sylvester represented to the investors that the partnerships would carry on the business of producing sound recordings, records and music and these representations were false.-        Eizenga and Sylvester marketed the partnerships as vehicles which would produce substantial tax savings. ...

A change in the taxpayer's mode and habit of work or reasonable expectations may signify a change in the chief source, but that is a question of fact in the circumstances. [16]     The manner in which Moldowan is to be applied was considered by the Federal Court of Appeal in The Queen v. ...

When I do so, I find that, while there are several opposing descriptions of certain facts, many of them are irrelevant to those factors to be considered in distinguishing the employee from the independent contractor. ...

Rousseau compared the workers, who were on call, to the situation of certain casual workers of businesses such as MacDonald's, Burger King or hospitals, also on call, who are considered regular employees nevertheless by the Employment Insurance Act. ...

DeMarco on the properties should be considered the payment of rent, and that these amounts can support the assessment against the Appellant ...

In other words, employment where the employer and employee are not dealing with each other at arm's lengthmust be considered employment where the employer and employee are dealing with each other at arm's length, if the context and circumstances surrounding the work performed are comparable or similar to a working relationship between two parties. [5]      The legislator also provided that the assessment completed to determine whether the work performed was comparable to that had the employer and employee been dealing with each other at arm's length should be completed in accordance with criteria established by the legislator, the duration, the renumeration, the nature, the importance, and all circumstances that may be relevant. [6]      In this case, in order to justify and explain his decision that not dealing with each other at arm's length shaped the working relationship for the periods at issue, the Respondent listed his assumptions of fact, which are reproduced in paragraph 5 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal. ...

The Respondent considered and applied section 2 of the Act when calculating the Appellant's income for the year. 6.          ...

[Emphasis added.]   9.1       Where a person's earnings are paid on an hourly basis, the person is considered to have worked in insurable employment for the number of hours that the person actually worked and for which the person was remunerated.   ...