Search - considered

Kanagasabai in looking more closely at whether there were expenditures which could be considered business expenses of the Appellant. [33]   During Mr. ...

These circumstances must be taken into account, but must be considered against an objective “reasonably prudent person” standard. … [17]   The emphasis under subsection 323(3) of the Act is the prevention of failures to remit and “not to condone it in the hope that matters can be rectified subsequently.” ...

On both counts, the Applicant failed to do so. [26]   Finally, contrary to what the Applicant submits, it is clear from the Decision that the Minister considered the delays caused by the CRA in addressing the NCL balance of the Applicant. ...

Adjudicators and members of the panel are not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence and they may receive and base a decision on evidence adduced in the proceedings and considered credible or trustworthy in the circumstances of the case (ss. 80.1(5) and 68(3)). 30. ...

Canada (Governor in Council) 2007 FCA 374, 370 N.R. 336, at paragraph 16, that a notice of application should only be struck out where it is “so clearly improper as to be bereft of any chance of success”, this is the same test articulated in JP Morgan (at paragraph 47) and the test applied by the Federal Court (reasons, paragraph 20). [27]   As to the appropriateness of not allowing the issue of jurisdiction to be considered by the Court at the time it decided the application for judicial review, at paragraph 35 of its reasons the Court noted that this is not a case where jurisdiction depended “on complex findings of fact or speculation as to future events.” so as to make it advisable to defer consideration of the issue of jurisdiction. ...

By the Order dated April 7, 2017 new timelines were set, including an obligation to report to the Tax Court by September 29, 2017; pursuant to an Order dated October 30, 2017, the Tax Court amended the April 7, 2017 Order to require the parties to report to the Tax Court by January 5, 2018; pursuant to an Order of the Tax Court dated January 31, 2018, a new timetable was set and, in accordance with this Order, the Crown conducted an examination for discovery of Sher-E-Punjab Radio’s nominee on February 5, 2018; pursuant to the January 31, 2018 Order, undertakings given by Sher-E-Punjab Radio were to be satisfied by May 31, 2018; Sher-E-Punjab Radio did not provide the undertakings by May 31, 2018, and did not request an extension of that deadline on a timely basis, or file a motion to request such an extension even though it had been advised by both the Crown and the Tax Court that it was required to do so; as a result, a second show cause hearing was held on November 21, 2018, at which time Justice Campbell considered whether Sher-E-Punjab Radio’s appeal should be dismissed for delay as argued by the Crown, or whether a further extension should be granted to Sher-E-Punjab Radio; as set out in the Order dated December 5, 2018, Justice Campbell granted Sher-E-Punjab Radio an extension. ...

Lastly, in some cases, the court held that the taxpayer had to know, given the situation, that there was a misrepresentation. [44] Having considered the aforementioned decisions, the following observation must be made. ...

Both did so and the Court has considered them. [34]   In those representations, neither party submits that the appeal in the first matter has determined this appeal. ...

Messenger’s submissions that: the CRA’s failure to update his 2017 contribution room should be considered a reasonable error that resulted in the over-contribution; he was not notified of the over-contribution until 2018; and, it was his decision not to withdraw the full excess for economic reasons. ...

It does not deprive the assessed person of life, liberty or security of the person within the meaning of section 7 of the Charter, and it does not place the assessed person under state control in a manner that could possibly be considered treatment or punishment within the meaning of section 12 of the Charter. [29] A similar conclusion was reached by the Federal Court of Appeal in Bauer v Canada, 2018 FCA 62, where the Court explained when Charter rights might come into play in tax matters. ...