Search - considered

Since this was not considered a medical service, she was not subject to over-sight by the referring health professional, if any. [10]   From 2008 until January 1, 2016, the Appellant was remunerated as an independent contractor. ... Minister of National Revenue, 2013 FCA 85 (“ Conner Homes ”). [16]   This test was articulated as follows: [33]   As a result, Royal Winnipeg Ballet stands for the proposition that what must first be considered is whether there is a mutual understanding or common intention between the parties regarding their relationship. ... (My Emphasis.) [29]   In other words, the Court must take a multifaceted approach where a number of factors are to be weighed and considered. ...

Cases Cited                      Considered: The Queen v. Marsh & McLennan, Ltd., [1984] 1 F.C. 609, reversing [1982] 2 F.C. 131; distinguished: Vancouver Pile Driving & Contracting Co. v. ... One of the amounts included in this complex formula is a corporation's "foreign investment income", defined in s. 129(4) as follows:                      (4) In subsection (3),   (a) "Canadian investment income" of a corporation for a taxation year means the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of   (i) the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of such of the corporation's taxable capital gains for the year from dispositions of property as may reasonably be considered to be income from sources in Canada exceeds the aggregate of such of the corporation's allowable capital losses for the year from dispositions of property as may reasonably be considered to be losses from sources in Canada,   (ii) all amounts each of which is the corporation's income for the year (other than exempt income or any dividend the amount of which was deductible under section 112 from its income for the year) from a source in Canada that is a property (other than a property used or held by the corporation in the year in the course of carrying on a business), determined, for greater certainty, after deducting all outlays and expenses deductible in computing the corporation's income for the year to the extent that they may reasonably be regarded as having been made or incurred for the purpose of earning the income from that property,   (iii) all amounts each of which is the corporation's income for the year (other than exempt income) from a source in Canada that is a business other than an active business, determined, for greater certainty, after deducting all outlays and expenses deductible in computing the corporation's income for the year to the extent that they may reasonably be regarded as having been made or incurred for the purpose of earning the income from that business,   exceeds the aggregate of amounts each of which is a loss of the corporation for the year from a source in Canada that is a property or business other than an active business; and   (b) "foreign investment income" of a corporation for a taxation year means the amount, if any, by which   (i) the amounts that would be determined under paragraph (a) in respect of the corporation for the year if the references in paragraph (a) to "in Canada" were read as references to "outside Canada",   exceeds   (ii) the aggregate of all amounts deductible under section 113 from the corporation's income for the year.   4.                 ...

Introduction [2]                 The issue to be decided turns on the income tax notion of safe income as it arises under subsection 55(2): 55(2) Where a corporation resident in Canada has after April 21, 1980 received a taxable dividend in respect of which it is entitled to a deduction under subsection 112(1) or 138(6) as part of a transaction or event or a series of transactions or events (other than as part of a series of transactions or events that commenced before April 22, 1980), one of the purposes of which (or, in the case of a dividend under subsection 84(3), one of the results of which) was to effect a significant reduction in the portion of the capital gain that, but for the dividend, would have been realized on a disposition at fair market value of any share of capital stock immediately before the dividend and that could reasonably be considered to be attributable to anything other than income earned or realized by any corporation after 1971 and before the transaction or event or the commencement of the series of transactions or events referred to in paragraph (3)(a), notwithstanding any other section of this Act, the amount of the dividend (other than the portion thereof, if any, subject to tax under Part IV that is not refunded as a consequence of the payment of a dividend to a corporation where the payment is part of the series of transactions or events) (a) shall be deemed not to be a dividend received by the corporation; (b) where a corporation has disposed of the share, shall be deemed to be proceeds of disposition of the share except to the extent that it is otherwise included in computing such proceeds; and 55(2) Lorsqu'une corporation résidant au Canada a reçu, après le 21 avril 1980, un dividende imposable à l'égard duquel elle a droit à une déduction en vertu du paragraphe 112(1) ou 138(6), comme partie d'une opération ou d'un événement ou d'une série d'opérations ou d'événements (sauf comme partie d'une série d'opérations ou d'événements qui ont commencé avant le 22 avril 1980) dont l'un des objets (ou, dans le cas d'un dividende visé au paragraphe 84(3), dont l'un des résultats) a été de diminuer sensiblement la partie du gain en capital qui, sans le dividende, aurait été réalisée lors d'une disposition d'une action du capital-actions à la juste valeur marchande, immédiatement avant le dividende et qui pourrait raisonnablement être considérée comme étant attribuable à quoi que ce soit qui n'est pas du revenu gagné ou réalisé par une corporation après 1971 et avant l'opération ou l'événement ou le début de la série d'opérations ou d'événements visés à l'alinéa (3)a), nonobstant tout autre article de la présente loi, le montant du dividende (à l'exclusion de la partie de celui-ci, si partie il y a, qui est assujettie à l'impôt en vertu de la Partie IV qui n'est pas remboursé en raison du paiement d'un dividende à une corporation lorsqu'un tel paiement fait partie de la série d'opérations ou d'événements) a) est réputé ne pas être un dividende reçu par la corporation; b) lorsqu'une corporation a disposé de l'action, est réputé être le produit de disposition de l'action, sauf dans la mesure où il est inclus par ailleurs dans le calcul de ce produit; et (c) where a corporation has not disposed of the share, shall be deemed to be a gain of the corporation for the year in which the dividend was received from the disposition of a capital property. c) lorsqu'une corporation n'a pas disposé de l'action, est réputé être un gain de la corporation pour l'année au cours de laquelle le dividende a été reçu de la disposition d'un bien en immobilisation. ... At the same time, Parliament did not want to impede the tax-free flow of dividends that were attributable to income which had already been taxed. [33]            One of the options considered by Parliament was to exhaustively define an earnings account by reference to control periods, which would have allowed for the actual measurement of the capital gain inherent in the shares that was attributable to anything but income whenever a dividend was paid. [34]            However, this approach was thought to be complex and overly onerous. ... Conceptually, this approach captures the tax applicable to the portion of the notional gain attributable to an increase in value of the underlying assets while maintaining the tax-free treatment of that part of this gain attributable to "income earned or realized" since 1971. [36]            What is of significance for our purposes is that, in making this apportionment, "income earned or realized" is "deemed" to be income otherwise computed (under the Act), subject only to the two exceptions mentioned in paragraph 55(5)(c) (in the case of a private corporation). [37]            The starting point for the subsection 55(2) apportionment was thus fixed by way of a deeming provision, leaving as the only other exercise the determination of that part of the notional capital gain which can "reasonably be considered to be attributable to anything other than" this income. [38]            There can be no doubt that this exercise calls for an inquiry as to whether "the income earned or realized" was kept on hand or remained disposable to fund the payment of the dividend. ...

Legislation [22]         All statutory references in these reasons are to the provisions of the Act and for the 2002 taxation year unless otherwise indicated. [23]         Subsections 237.1(1), (2), (6.1), (6.2) and (7.4) are the relevant provisions which state: 237.1 (1) Definitions- In this section, “promoter” in respect of a tax shelter means a person who in the course of a business (a) sells or issues, or promotes the sale, issuance or acquisition of, the tax shelter, (b) acts as an agent or adviser in respect of the sale or issuance, or the promotion of the sale, issuance or acquisition, of the tax shelter, or (c) accepts, whether as a principal or agent, consideration in respect of the tax shelter, and more than one person may be a tax shelter promoter in respect of the same tax shelter; “tax shelter” means any property (including, for greater certainty, any right to income) in respect of which it can reasonably be considered, having regard to statements or representations made or proposed to be made in connection with the property, that, if a person were to acquire an interest in the property, at the end of a particular taxation year that ends within 4 years after the day on which the interest is acquired, (a)        the total of all amounts each of which is (i)         an amount, or a loss in the case of a partnership interest, represented to be deductible in computing income in respect of the interest in the property (including, where the property is a right to income, an amount or loss in respect of that right that is represented to be deductible) and expected to be incurred by or allocated to the person for the particular year or any preceding taxation year, or (ii)        any other amount represented to be deductible in computing income or taxable income in respect of the interest in the property and expected to be incurred by or allocated to the person for the particular year or any preceding taxation year, other than any amount included in computing a loss described in subparagraph (i), would equal or exceed (b)        the amount, if any, by which (i)         the cost to the person of the interest in the property at the end of the particular year, determined without reference to section 143.2, would exceed (ii)        the total of all amounts each of which is the amount of any prescribed benefit that is expected to be received or enjoyed, directly or indirectly, in respect of the interest in the property by the person or another person with whom the person does not deal at arm’s length, but does not include property that is a flow-through share or a prescribed property. (2) Application – A promoter in respect of a tax shelter shall apply to the Minister in prescribed form for an identification number for the tax shelter unless an identification number therefor has previously been applied for. … (6.1) Deductions and claims disallowed – No amount may be deducted or claimed by any person for any taxation year in respect of a tax shelter of the person where any person is liable to a penalty under subsection (7.4) or 162(9) in respect of the tax shelter or interest on the penalty and (a) the penalty or interest has not been paid; or (b) the penalty and interest have been paid, but an amount on account of the penalty or interest has been repaid under subsection 164(1.1) or applied under subsection 164(2). (6.2) Assessments – Nothwithstanding subsections 152(4) to (5), such assessments, determinations and redeterminations may be made as are necessary to give effect to subsection (6.1). … (7.4) Penalty – Every person who files false or misleading information with the Minister in respect of an application under subsection (2) or, whether as a principal or as an agent, sells, issues or accepts consideration in respect of a tax shelter before the Minister has issued an identification number for the tax shelter is liable to a penalty equal to the greater of (a) $500, and (b) 25% of the total of all amounts each of which is the consideration received or receivable from a person in respect of the tax shelter before the correct information is filed with the Minister or the identification number is issued, as the case may be … [Emphasis added] IV. ... I find that this fulfills the requirement of “represented to be deductible in computing income” under subparagraph 237.1(1) (a)(i) of the definition of a tax shelter. [3] Amount expected to be incurred [39]         As to the second part of subparagraph 237.1(1)(a)(i), an amount that is “expected to be incurred by … the person” would be satisfied as a consequence of the assumed acquisition of an interest in the property as an amount that can be incurred by a prospective purchaser (that is, the appellants). [40]         The Court in Baxter, at paragraph 14, notes that the question posed is whether in light of statements or representations communicated, it may reasonably be considered that at the end of any particular taxation year of the prospective purchaser ending within the four-year period, the amount that has been announced or communicated to be deductible to the prospective purchaser as a consequence of the prospective acquisition of the property equals or exceeds the cost to the prospective purchaser of the property, determined at the end of the particular taxation year in question, less the amount of all “prescribed benefits” expected to be received or enjoyed, directly or indirectly, in respect of that property by the prospective purchaser. ... Gleig’s circumstances, under subparagraph 237.1(1)(a)(i), the amount represented to be deductible in computing income in the 2002 taxation year and expected to be incurred was $40,000. [44]         Since that amount exceeds the amount of $10,000 arrived at under paragraph 237.1(1)(b), it can reasonably be considered that the calculation component of the definition of a tax shelter in subsection 237.1(1) is satisfied. [5] [45]         Blue Hill meets the definition of a “promoter” in paragraph 237.1(1)(a). [6] The provisions in subsections 237.1(2) and (4) require that a promoter in respect of the tax shelter must obtain an identification number from the Minister before there can be any sale of a property constituting a tax shelter. [7] Clearly, Blue Hill did not apply to the Minister for an identification number with respect to the Interests marketed and a penalty was levied, which remains unpaid. [8] VI. ...

On appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, Justice Rothstein dismissed the Minister’s appeal and affirmed the following language of the Federal Court (Thanabalasingham, above at para 21): [The ID] could have described in more detail his reasoning, but his failure to do so does not constitute a reviewable error when it is clear from the decision itself that he had considered all the evidence relating to the context of those convictions and, nevertheless, declared himself not satisfied that they alone could support a detention order. ... [30]   The Minister argues that the Member unreasonably determined that the Respondent was rehabilitated, for the following reasons: (i) The Member should not have given weight to the fact that the Respondent has no criminal convictions since entering prison in January 2014, as his institutional convictions during that period suggest he is not rehabilitated; (ii) The Member’s finding of rehabilitation is inconsistent with the evidence from Corrections Canada linking the Respondent to the institutional subculture, in particular a 2018 report by the Respondent’s parole officer; (iii) The Member unreasonably considered the presence of the Respondent’s children when addressing rehabilitation. [31]   The Minister mischaracterizes the Member’s finding. ... The ID considered this evidence in depth and reasonably weighed it. The Minister invites this Court to intervene and reweigh the evidence that was before the Member, but that is not the role of this Court (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at para 61). [33]   The ID was also reasonable to note that the presence of the Respondent’s young children present a motivation for him not to reoffend. [34]   The Member reasonably found that the Respondent was on a path towards rehabilitation, having reviewed in detail the Respondent’s circumstances. ...

The Court considered the permanent nature of the improvement in light of the principle set-out in Saint-Germain and, finding that the lease was “ineffective”, determined that there was a shareholder benefit equal to the cost of the installation in the same taxation year. [48]   In Colubriale, Noel J. ... If such an addition or improvement vests in the owner of the building, a benefit is considered to have been conferred on the shareholder by the corporation pursuant to subsection 15(1). The amount of the benefit is considered to be the present value of the amount, if any, by which the addition or improvement increases the value of the building to the shareholder at the time the building reverts to the shareholder. (…). ...

There were a number of incidents that you were involved in that were concerning and could be considered breaches of the RCMP Code of Conduct. ... I considered this to be relevant to the global assessment of your suitability to remain a member. ... When this information is considered in its totality, I am left to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, based on the documentation provided that you have failed to consistently demonstrate your suitability to remain as a member of the RCMP despite being provided the reasonable opportunity, support, guidance, and direction to do so. ...

Where a statement of claim appears to exhibit defects of this nature, it is entirely reasonable for a case management judge to direct that a motion to strike be considered first. ... She considered the relevant case law, in particular Simon v Canada, 2011 FCA 6, and correctly stated that the test is whether “the defects in the claim can potentially be cured by amendment.” ... DONALD WILSON, LAURA LEE, AMY FORCE, PAT CHMILAR, JENNIFER YOUNG, DAMEN GREWAL, JULISA CHENG, AL MIYAI, MEGAN KOWALCHUK, EVA GOLDSTEIN, CHARMAINE MARTIN, JONATHAN LEE, WILLIAM JAMES, GEORGE BODY, JOHN DOE 1, JANE DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JANE DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3, JANE DOE 3 MOTION MADE IN WRITING PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO. order AND REASONS: GRAMMOND J. ...

. […] [9] This particular statement convinces me of the importance and complexity of the issues considered by the FC. ... I have reviewed the parties’ submissions and considered factors such as: (a) the result of the proceeding was in favour of the Appellant; and (c) the importance and complexity of the issues discussed during the hearing, and have determined the 3 units claimed under Column III to be reasonable (Rules 400(3) and 409). [14] Turning to the duration of the hearing, the Appellant claimed 2 hours for the hearing held on June 24, 2019. ... LAVALLEE, DONALD WORME, RODNEY BRASS, ANGELA DESJARLAIS, SIDNEY KESHANE AND GLEN O'SOUP MATTER CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT BY: STÉPHANIE ST-PIERRE BABIN, Assessment Officer DATED: January 12, 2023 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: Lynda K. ...

Ownership of tools [27] According to the case law, using his own chainsaw does not prevent a worker from being considered an employee. ... Cases considered: Canada (Attorney General) v. Rousselle, [1990] F.C.J. ...