Search - considered

The IAD considered the evidence and made a determination that falls within the range of reasonable outcomes. It correctly noted the factors to be considered, including whether the applicant has demonstrated remorse for the misrepresentation. ... This principle must be considered in assessing the evidence of this case, and it informs the approach taken by the IAD to the degree of responsibility of the Principal Applicant. ...

While the best interests of the children is an important and positive factor in this appeal, it is one factor to be considered and does not override other factors. ... It also failed to identify, define, or truly examine the BIOC. [18]   Second, the IAD relied on rationale and conclusions this Court has previously considered to be unreasonable concerning the future ability for the children to communicate with Mr. ... However, Lewis considered the refusal of a deferral of deportation by a CBSA enforcement officer, and thus arose in an entirely different context. ...

The Appeal Division observed that, although the General Division had considered Ms. ... The Appeal Division cannot reweigh the evidence the General Division considered about Ms. ... With respect to the failed work attempts, the General Division appropriately considered Ms. ...

The Queen, [2002] T.C.J. 547, 2002 D.T.C. 2132, following the decisions in Johnston and Radage, [7] Justice Rip as he then was, considered the cumulative effect of multiple significant restrictions activities of daily living. ... The Court considered other elimination cases. These cases make it clear that, in deciding what is an inordinate of time for bowel elimination, it is necessary to consider the number of washroom trips and the time they took in determining if it occupied an inordinate amount of time. ... The Court further considered whether all of the taxpayer’s daily decisions and actions literally revolved around their disability from the standpoint of the time required each day on an ongoing basis to perform that function (or in this case functions). ...

The first document signed was a deed of gift of cash which, as part of contributing $5000 in cash to an escrow agent, he directed this agent to apply for him to be considered a Capital Beneficiary of a Deed of Gift of Property. ... I have considered whether the gifts can be split, possibly allowing the Appellant his $5000 contribution as a charitable gift. ... While I have not considered the breadth of all the matters considered in that decision, for those that I have considered, my conclusions in this matter are the same as those which was reached in Mariano. [42]   In Mariano, Justice Pizzitelli came to the following conclusion: [49] In the end, I cannot see how any person participating in such a scheme, regardless of whether such person had an honest belief in the value of the Licences he expected to receive or not, can argue, based on the manner in which the scheme was marketed and in the makeup and integration of the Transactional Documents that deliver it, that he or she expected none other than to profit from, be enriched or not be impoverished by, such participation, and thus not have the requisite donative intent. [43]   My ruling should be and will be consistent with Mariano concerning donative intent. ...

This obligation is satisfied when the decision-maker considered the submissions that the [taxpayer] presented. In this regard, “a decision maker is assumed to have weighed and considered all the evidence presented to it unless the contrary is shown” (Boulos v. ... Nevertheless, as the Federal Court of Appeal noted in Ark Angel, a decision maker is presumed to have weighed and considered all of the evidence presented. ...

The parties agree this is the operative document. [10] The Information Circular includes the following discussion of when a VDP application will be considered voluntary: Conditions of a Valid Disclosure 31. ... It would be incongruous for a disclosure to be considered voluntary simply because a related taxpayer did not file the returns that would reveal the same information until after filing a VDP application. ... Harris would not disclose any information regarding 405 Canada, it argues the disclosure should not be considered involuntary. ...

The point at issue is whether the sum of $150,000 paid to the appellant was a sum paid to induce it to sign a purchasing loyalty agreement and, if that was the case, can that sum reasonably be considered to be a payment made in respect of the acquisition by the payor of an interest in the appellant, its business or its property within the meaning of subparagraph 12(2)(x)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1 (the “Act”). ... It was also provided that in the event Métro did not exercise its right to purchase the latter the appellant, as we have seen, had to make sure that the purchaser of the business signed a contract to be a member of Métro and observe the rights conferred on Métro by the aforesaid agreement for the unexpired portion of the term of the agreement.” [2] He concluded at page (C.T.C. 2225-26): I therefore consider that the amount of $75,000 received by the appellant can reasonably be considered a payment made for the acquisition by Métro of rights in the appellant’s business within the meaning of s. 12(l)(x)(viii) of the Act. ... There he explained how, in his view, these terms must be understood: Consideration of Acquisition of an Interest Paragraph 12(l)(x) moreover will not apply to sums that could reasonably be considered as the consideration of the acquisition of an interest in a business, a property or a taxpayer. ...

In 1991 he was considered as a resident of Canada because of certain ties he had retained with Canada coupled with the fact he had not established a residence abroad. ... In other words he was not an employee of the organization nor can he be considered as carrying on a business as it is absolutely clear that there were no profits to be derived from his activities. ... The Department has considered the possibility of the expenses being considered as a charitable donation but this obviously does not square with the facts of the case. ...

During that period, USCO was considered a subsidiary of ERL. The plaintiff testified that it was his intention to operate USCO in a manner similar to the Canadian companies, namely, receiving dividends from BISL and BISL charging USCO a management fee. ... For the purposes of paragraph 20(1)(c), the Court, in Bronfman, determined that not only did the use to which borrowed money was put have to be considered, as between eligible and ineligible uses, the purpose of using the borrowed money also had to be considered, since the deduction is contingent on the use for a particular income-earning purpose. ... Recently, the interpretation of taxing statutes was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada v. ...