Search - considered

In the context of a motion to dismiss an action for failure to state a reasonable cause of action, such allegations normally are resolved by reference to the reasons, considered against the documentary record. ... Collins wishes to submit on appeal that the judge considered a legal argument of which she was not given fair notice or a fair opportunity to respond, she is free to do so and to support her submission by referring to the portion of the judge’s reasons in which that issue was considered, and then referring to the Amended Amended Notice of Motion and the written representations of the Crown to establish that the argument does not appear. ...

Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, as the framework within which applications pursuant to paragraph 168(2)(b) of the ITA should be considered (see International Charity Association Network v. ...   [11]            Counsel for the Crown did not consent to this new argument by the Foundation and reaffirmed her position that the application before this Court should be considered in the context of the tripartite test in RJR-MacDonald ... I agree with counsel for the Crown that the post-hearing submissions are improper and accordingly, those submissions will not be considered. ...

Normally, in the case of a judgment rendered in writing by a judge of a superior court of record, a judgment would be considered to be “pronounced” when it has been signed and recorded by the registry. ...   [14]            In determining whether to grant an extension of time to appeal a judgment, all relevant circumstances must be considered. ... In my view, that is a reasonable explanation, particularly when it is considered in light of the very short duration of the delay. ...

While the essential character of the bungee cords may well be their rubber interior, this is only a relevant consideration under Rule 3(b) of the General Rules and should not be considered unless the classification cannot be directed under Rule 1, 2, or 3(a) (CITT’s decision, para. 27) ... Once it is accepted that the unfinished cords are properly classified as goods under heading 56.04, the only matter which remains to be decided is the heading under which they might fall when considered as finished articles. ... As a result, heading 56.09 on its face would include the finished bungee cords, whether they are considered as falling within one or the other of those groups, so long as they are “not elsewhere specified or included.” ...

This resulted in a large volume of work for the conduct of the appeal, and that this should all be considered by the taxing officer ...   [16]   Counsel for the Appellant noted that the Respondent had provided no basis for which the number of hours claimed could be considered unreasonable. ...   [17]   In summary, counsel for the Appellant noted that the factors to be considered by the taxing officer under section 154 of the Rules should result in her client being fully indemnified if the test of reasonableness was met, which she believed it was as noted in paragraph 10 above. ...

Ranasinghe Counsel for the Respondent: Gergely Hegedus Donna Tomljanovic   ORDER           Whereas a judgment was rendered on August 13, 2014;             And whereas the parties were to provide written submissions on costs;             And whereas such submissions have been received and considered;             It is hereby ordered that the Appellants are awarded costs of $13,000 plus disbursements of $1,714.50 in accordance with the attached reasons. ... Words found in legislation are not generally considered redundant.. . . [8]              The Respondent argues that novelty, uniqueness, complexity, difficulty or the fact that a large amount of money is involved are not necessarily reasons to depart from the Tariff. ... This variation demonstrates that the amount in issue is simply one factor to be considered among all of the section 147 factors. [19]         Overall, the amount in issue here was relatively low and only favours a percentage that moves slightly, if at all, beyond the Tariff. ...

It is not possible for students to study fast enough to be considered to be studying full time. . . . [8]              The MBA program requires successful completion of 180 credits to graduate, whether attending online or on campus. ... However, it is clear that in Krause, the university characterized the attendance as full‑time and that the key issue before Associate Chief Justice Bowman (as he then was) was whether online attendance could ever be considered full‑time. [17]         Ms.  ... In McGrath, the evidence accepted by Justice McArthur was that the university considered Ms.  ...

Legislative provisions [18]          Concerning the CCTB, section 122.6 of the Act defines the following terms: “eligible individual” in respect of a qualified dependant at any times means a person who at that time a)       resides with the qualified dependant, b)       is the parent of the qualified dependant who (i)     is the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant and who is not a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant, or (ii)     is a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant,... and for the purposes of this definition, (f)      where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant’s female parent, the parent who primarily fulfills the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed be the female parent, (g)    the presumption referred to in paragraph 122.6 eligible individual (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h)    prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing; “qualified dependant” at any time means a person who at that time a)       has not attained the age of 18 years; b)       is not a person in respect of whom an amount was deducted under paragraph (a) of the description of B in subsection 118(1) in computing the tax payable under this Part by the person’s spouse or common-law partner for the base taxation year in relation to the month that includes that time, and c)       is not a person in respect of whom a special allowance under the Children’s Special Allowances Act is payable for the month that includes that time; “shared-custody parent” in respect of a qualified dependant at a time means, where the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) of the definition “eligible individual” does not apply in respect of the qualified dependant, an individual who is one of the two parents of the qualified dependant who a)         are not at that time cohabiting spouses or common-law partners of each other, b)         reside with the qualified dependant on an equal or near equal basis, and c)         primarily fulfil the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant when residing with the qualified dependant, as determined in consideration of prescribed factors. [19]          Section 6302 of the Income Tax Regulations (the “ Regulations ”) lists the prescribed factors for determining whether a parent primarily fulfils the care and upbringing of children: 6302. For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition “eligible individual” in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant: (a)   the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant; (b)   the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides; (c)   the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant; (d)   the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant; (e)   the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person; (f)   the attendance to the hygienic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis; (g)   the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and (h)   the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides. Analysis [20]          For the purposes of the CCTB, there is no doubt that child M. was a qualified dependant. [21]          The presumption in favour of the mother set forth in paragraph (f) of the definition of “eligible individual” does not apply in this case, as both parents filed a CCTB claim for child M. for the period from July 2015 to June 2017. [22]          For the appellant to be considered an “eligible individual” in relation to child M. at a given time, during the period from July 2015 to June 2017, one of the following conditions must be met: a)      the appellant resides with the dependant; b)     the appellant is the father of the dependant and primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the dependant and is not a shared-custody parent in respect of the dependant; c)      the appellant is a shared-custody parent of child M. [23]          When the parents of the qualified dependant are shared-custody parents, they must share the CCTB. ...

The Minister also considered that in ostensibly donating the corporate shares, the Appellant had no “donative interest”. As well the Minister considered that in “donating” these corporate shares which the Minister considered as having no value, the Appellant had participated in a tax shelter scheme and had not reported prescribed information accordingly, including a tax shelter identification number. [3]               More particularly, in this regard, in the Amended Reply at paragraphs 9(a) to (d) and 9(g) to (s) the Respondent pleaded assumptions made by the Minister, as follows: a)         in 2009, the appellant earned income of $47,201, which was comprised of employment income of $27,378.30, employment insurance benefits of $4,848.00 and taxable capital gains of $14,975; b)         in the ten years prior to the 2009 taxation year, the appellant’s total charitable donations was $0; Congregation of the Sisters of Merciful Jesus (the “Charity”) c)         the Charity is a charitable organization in Hobbema, Albert; d)         the Charity is based in Poland and the nuns are not elders of the Samson Indian band, nor any other Indian band; … Strategic Gifting Group g)         Strategic Gifting Group (“Strategic”) was a sole proprietorship owned by Abraham Herbert Grossman (aka Al Grossman); h)         between October, 2009 and February, 2011, Strategic ran an arrangement that was promoted to allow a participant to claim in his or her tax return, a charitable donation of four to twelve dollars for every dollar that he or she contributed (the “Strategic Scheme”); i)          Strategic and/or its promoters promoted that a participant who was an Ontario resident would receive a return of approximately 46.41%; j)          the Minister did not issue a tax shelter identification number in respect of Strategic; k)         the appellant did not provide a tax shelter identification number with respect to the amounts claimed from as a result of his participation in the Strategic Scheme and he did not file a form T5004; l)          the Strategic Scheme operated as follows: i.   ...

Kenny did not have to report the social assistance payments as income in Ireland, they should not be considered income for purposes of section 118.94 of the Act. ... There are many cases in this Court that have considered the meaning of "all or substantially all". ... The Queen, 98 DTC 2151 stated at p. 2154. [18]          Indeed, cases have relied on percentages as low as 76% to be considered substantially all. ...