Search - considered

[Emphasis added.] [12]            In addition to these factors, the subjective intention of the parties must also be considered. Where one can establish a common intent of the parties with regard to the type of working relationship they wished to establish, this intent must be considered in the Court’s analysis of the foregoing factors. [13]            It is important to bear in mind, however, that the intention of the parties is only relevant to the extent that it is reflected in the facts of the case. ... Hayes could listen in on calls, but there is no evidence that Greenshield could, or would, interfere with the manner in which pitches were made. [25]         The only meetings with Workers consisted of a 5 minute presentation at the start of each shift in which relevant information, such as special sales promotions, were provided to the Workers. [26]         When the evidence is considered as a whole, I find that it is more consistent with Greenshield not having the ability to control how the work was done. ...

At paragraph 38, Withler identifies a non-exhaustive list of contextual factors that can be considered: Without attempting to limit the factors that may be useful in assessing a claim of discrimination, it can be said that where the discriminatory effect is said to be the perpetuation of disadvantage or prejudice, evidence that goes to establishing a claimant’s historical position of disadvantage or to demonstrating existing prejudice against the claimant group, as well as the nature of the interest that is affected, will be considered. … Where the impugned law is part of a larger benefits scheme, as it is here, the ameliorative effect of the law on others and the multiplicity of interests it attempts to balance will also colour the discrimination analysis. [9]              There is no question that Mr. ... Allocation of resources and particular policy goals that the legislature may be seeking to achieve may also be considered. [15]         Mr. ...

Fortier had not thought of this impediment during the month and a half he considered purchasing it. ... The Queen, the Tax Court of Canada stated again that taxpayers have the right to disagree with the Minister in their interpretation of the Act, without this necessarily being considered a misrepresentation. ...   …   18        To conclude that the appellant's conduct was a wilful default or that it constituted a sufficient error to permit the Minister to assess beyond the normal period, would affect any taxpayer's right to contest the merits of an assessment, and would cause the limitation period imposed by Parliament to be essentially theoretical.   26        In the light of the above-noted decisions, it appears that adopting a thoughtfully considered position that contradicts the Minister's position does not in itself mean the taxpayer made a misrepresentation that would allow the Minister to assess outside the normal period ...

  [3]              The offer was rejected by the Crown, without a counter-offer, for these reasons: (1) the Crown was prohibited from making a compromise counter-offer because the issue was “all or nothing,” (2) the Crown considered that its position was legally correct, and (3) Blackburn’s offer was not an offer of settlement as contemplated by the Rules but a request to consent to judgment ... It has also been considered in intellectual property litigation: Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v Maple Leaf Meats Inc., 2002 FCA 417 (Maple Leaf Meats) ...   [21]         In Walker Estate, the Court (Morden A.C.J.O., Doherty and Moldaver JJ.A.) states that “[t]he absence of compromise is to be considered together with the fact that the [defendant] was relying upon a defence of substance ...

When a child is emancipated and leaves the custody of the spouse, the problem addressed by Parliament in allowing the deduction of amounts paid for the benefit of the child ceases to exist: from that point on, the former spouse no longer has a duty of care deriving from his or her right of custody, and the support can no longer be considered to be owing or paid on account of that duty.                 ... I too fully concur with the above remarks of Noël J. in Curzi, though the facts before me, compared with those considered by the Tax Court of Canada in the judgment a quo, have been somewhat qualified with respect to the original statement by the plaintiff that his son Laurent was "living with neither his mother nor his father" in 1986 and 1987. To my mind, however, the facts put in evidence before me remain essentially the same as those considered by the Tax Court of Canada, and by Noël J. of this Court in Curzi. ...

Having considered the responding record, I am satisfied there are no reasons to justify an oral hearing, and so the defendants’ motion to strike shall be dealt with in writing ... To the extent the 71 pages contained therein constitute a reply, they will be considered. ... HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN THE RIGHT OF CANADA (as vicariously liable on behalf of Judicial Administrator of Federal Court of Canada, Clerk of the Privy Council of Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Attorney General of Canada, Registrar of Supreme Court of Canada, Executive Director of Canadian Judicial Council and Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs and Her Excellence The Governor General of Canada)     CONSIDERED IN WRITING PURSUANT TO RULE 369 AT MONTREAL, QUEBEC   REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY:                             HARRINGTON J.   ...

In this case, the Minister concedes that Suncor"s land which has undergone oil sand extraction operations is "strip-mined land", and similar to the concession in Double N respecting gravel operations, even though oil sand is a non-mineral resource, "restoration" of the land considered strip-mined in this case is considered "mining" in s.69(1) of the Act. [17]      In assessing Suncor"s rebate claim, as in Double N, the Minister used the concept of a "minimum dump point" which is the point beyond which stripped material must be moved in order to allow sufficient room for mining practices to be conducted. ... Therefore, I also find that Suncor"s activities of gathering and carrying muskeg and overburden up to a "minimum dump point" constitutes "restoration" within the meaning of s.69(1). [25]      Similar to the decision in Double N, in this case the Minister found that the restoration of land strip-mined for oil sand is considered "mining" for the purposes of the fuel tax rebate. ...

Where an extraordinary circumstance beyond the person's control has prevented the person from complying with the Act, the following factors will be considered by the Department to determine whether or not penalties and interest will be cancelled or waived:                  (a) Does the person have a satisfactory history of voluntary compliance (i.e., have previous GST returns been filed and payments made on time)?                  ... The following factors will be considered when determining whether or not the Department will cancel or waive the interest and 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 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. [4]                 The issue raised by the applicants is: Did the Minister err in deciding not to exercise his discretion so as to grant the applicants a waiver? ... Therefore, I am unable to assess whether or not Officer Montgomerie considered the relevant and correct information and made a reasonable recommendation with regards to the waiver of interest and penalties. [10]            The parties are therefore directed to provide this Court with a full and clear report as to the information necessary for an assessment of the six issues mentioned in paragraph 8. ...

Where an extraordinary circumstance beyond the person's control has prevented the person from complying with the Act, the following factors will be considered by the Department to determine whether or not penalties and interest will be cancelled or waived:                  (a) Does the person have a satisfactory history of voluntary compliance (i.e., have previous GST returns been filed and payments made on time)?                  ... The following factors will be considered when determining whether or not the Department will cancel or waive the interest and 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 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. [4]                 The issue raised by the applicants is: Did the Minister err in deciding not to exercise his discretion so as to grant the applicants a waiver? ... Therefore, I am unable to assess whether or not Officer Montgomerie considered the relevant and correct information and made a reasonable recommendation with regards to the waiver of interest and penalties. [10]            The parties are therefore directed to provide this Court with a full and clear report as to the information necessary for an assessment of the six issues mentioned in paragraph 8. ...

Where an extraordinary circumstance beyond the person's control has prevented the person from complying with the Act, the following factors will be considered by the Department to determine whether or not penalties and interest will be cancelled or waived:                  (a) Does the person have a satisfactory history of voluntary compliance (i.e., have previous GST returns been filed and payments made on time)?                  ... The following factors will be considered when determining whether or not the Department will cancel or waive the interest and 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 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. [4]                 The issue raised by the applicants is: Did the Minister err in deciding not to exercise his discretion so as to grant the applicants a waiver? ... Therefore, I am unable to assess whether or not Officer Montgomerie considered the relevant and correct information and made a reasonable recommendation with regards to the waiver of interest and penalties. [10]            The parties are therefore directed to provide this Court with a full and clear report as to the information necessary for an assessment of the six issues mentioned in paragraph 8. ...