Search - considered

MacLean, acting on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) set out the following reasons for denying the request:   Our review has carefully considered all file documentation and your comments with regard to your request in relation to the applicable legislation. ... Further, s. 10 of the Guidelines sets out a non‑exhaustive list of factors that “will” be considered, as follows: 10.               The following factors will be considered when determining whether or not the Department will cancel or waive interest or penalties:     (a)                 whether or not the taxpayer or employer has a history of compliance with tax obligations;     (b)                whether or not the taxpayer or employer has knowingly allowed a balance to exist upon which arrears interest has accrued;     (c)                 whether or not the taxpayer or employer has exercised a reasonable amount of care and has not been negligent or careless in conducting their affairs under the self-assessment system;       (d)                whether or not the taxpayer or employer has acted quickly to remedy any delay or omission.   10.               ...

In particular subsection 45 (2) of the Interpretation Act 5 is responsive to this argument: 45. (2) The amendment of an enactment shall not be deemed to be or to involve a declaration that the law under that enactment was or was considered by Parliament or other body or person by whom the enactment was enacted to have been different from the law as it is under the enactment as amended. 45. (2) La modification d"un texte ne constitue pas ni n n"implique une déclaration portant que les règles de droit du texte étaient différentes de celles de sa version modifiée ou que le Parlement, ou toute autre autorité qui l"a édicté, les considérait comme telles. [7]      The primary argument being advanced by the appellants is that the words "funded by a government" (subsection 123(1) of the Act) is equivalent to the words "government funding" (subsection 2(a)(ii) of the GST Regulations) and therefore one need look no further. ... " The closest English equivalents are the words "grant" or "subsidy". 9 [11]      Earlier decisions of this Court also support this result, having decided that the receipt of money as a result of an ordinary business contract negotiated between the parties for business reasons cannot be considered to be a grant or subsidy. 10 [12]      I also reject the appellants" argument that the phrases "funded by a government" and "government funding" are equivalent, and that, as a result, the definition of "government funding" assists in determining the meaning of "funded by a government". When an Act uses different words in relation to the same subject such a choice by Parliament must be considered intentional and indicative of a change in meaning or a different meaning. 11 For the purpose of delineating the eligibility for the GST rebates, Parliament has chosen to make a distinction between "government funding" and "funded by a government". ...

The problem, however, is that section 94.1 of the Regulations provides that a week of insurable employment "shall be considered to represent 35 hours of insurable employment". ... Employment Insurance Regulations:      94.1 Where, for the purposes of the Act and in respect of a benefit period established on or after January 5, 1997, a claimant presents evidence of a week of insurable employment that occurred before January 1, 1997, that week of insurable employment shall be considered to represent 35 hours of insurable employment.      ... Hoek recently considered the interpretation to be given to section 94.1 of the Regulations under the Employment Insurance Act. ...

. … […] (4) The Federal Court may grant relief under subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the federal board, commission or other tribunal (4) Les mesures prévues au paragraphe (3) sont prises si la Cour fédérale est convaincue que l’office fédéral, selon le cas: … […] (d) based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it; d) a rendu une décision ou une ordonnance fondée sur une conclusion de fait erronée, tirée de façon abusive ou arbitraire ou sans tenir compte des éléments dont il dispose; [18]            However, these documents were not available when the 2 nd Decision was made in January 2017 and/or the facts stated were already known and considered. The matter of PTSD discussed in the two doctors’ letters, which post-date the 2 nd Decision, was known and had been considered. ... The death of the Applicant's son was likewise known and considered and had been so in the 1 st Decision which granted relief on that ground. ...

Analysis [13]   Under paragraph 39(1)(c) of the ITA, in order for a taxpayer’s loss to be considered a BIL, the debt at the time of the loss must be a debt owing by a Canadian-controlled private corporation operating a small business. [14]   The definition of “small business corporation” is in subsection 248(1) of the ITA. Under this definition, for a corporation to be considered a “small business corporation”, the corporation must be a Canadian-controlled private corporation all or substantially all of the fair market value of the assets of which at that time is attributable to assets that are, among other things, used principally in an active business carried on primarily in Canada by the particular corporation or by a corporation related to it at any time in the twelve months preceding that time. [15]   The definition of “active business” is also in subsection 248(1) of the ITA. Under this definition, any business carried on by the taxpayer resident in Canada, other than a specified investment business or a personal services business, is an active business. [16]   This Court is of the view that under this definition, if a business is being operated, it is an active business. [17]   It is perhaps for this reason, as the Federal Court of Appeal noted in Weaver, [1] that the courts have historically given the phrase “active business” such a broad interpretation that there are few things a corporation could do that would enable one to find, based on its accomplishment of those things, that it was not an active business. [2] [18]   In the end, according to the Federal Court of Appeal in Boulanger, [3] each case should be examined on its individual merits. [4] In the same judgment, the Federal Court of Appeal listed some factors that can be considered in determining whether a business is an active business. ...

The Board considered the applicant’s criminal record. [9]   On May 1, 2018, the applicant filed his memorandum of fact and law. ... His submissions also referenced the argument that the Board should not have arrived at a finding of fact that contradicted those of Parent J. [22]   The Board clearly stated that it considered the applicant’s submissions. ... It might have been preferable for the Board to indicate clearly that it had considered that question, but I do not consider this to be necessary. ...

In dismissing that appeal, the court considered a CRA publication and the Minister of Finance’s Explanatory Notes to Bill C-62. [17]   In the present appeal, the appellant was a contractor to Dhatt and Mr. ... Consequently, a person who contracts with a shipper to move goods from one place to another is still considered to be a carrier of the goods, even if the work is sub-contracted to another carrier who physically performs the entire service. Finally, it should be noted that a person does not have to be government-licensed in order to be considered to be a carrier for GST purposes. ...

Rather, the Applicant’s demeanour is one of many factors considered by the officer. ... These are different legal proceedings; Elliott J. did not have the benefit of the evidence and observing the Applicant’s testimony that the officer had, and it is not in and of itself unreasonable for the officer to come to a different conclusion on the same evidence. [21]   I have considered the other submissions of the Applicant in regard to the other credibility findings and the difficulties with the officer’s assessment, but again, considered as a whole and in light of the record, I do not find that they rendered the decision unreasonable. ...

A fair reading of the Federal Court’s reasons from beginning to end in light of the record before it shows that it properly applied the proper legal test for obviousness. [4]   In applying the legal test for obviousness to the evidence before it, the Federal Court concluded as follows (at para. 203): Having now considered each of the characteristic components of bortezomib individually, I must now consider whether it was inventive to have selected all of them in combination. ... The appellate court must also keep front of mind the rebuttable presumption that the first-instance court reviewed and considered all of the evidence: Housen at para. 46. ... But the wider context often reveals what the first-instance court considered and decided, and why. [12]   Admittedly, the line between true palpable and overriding error on the one hand and mere inadequacies of expression on the other can be subtle and indistinct. ...

Such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may deem just. [7]   The Applicants argue that the decision in question, that is to enact certain regulations, was made by various actors including the Department of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, the Treasury Board of Canada, and the Governor in Council and that they require access to the documents created and considered by those participants. [8]   The Respondents submit that the decision in question, that is the Regulation, was made only by the Governor in Council and the material produced on September 6, 2018 is the only relevant material to satisfy the requirements of Rule 317 of the Rules. [9]   Subsequent to the hearing of the Motion on June 18, 2019, the Respondents provided the decision in Gray v. ... This requires that subsection 18(1) be considered in the context of the Act read as a whole. ... The Respondents assert that many, if not all, of the documents that were considered by the Governor in Council are subject to cabinet confidence pursuant to section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. ...