Search - considered

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Lamarre, J. [1]      Whereas the appellant claimed a business loss of $13,468 in her 1991 income tax return and such loss was allowed on initial assessment dated August 21, 1992. [2]      Whereas by reassessment dated August 16, 1995, the business loss initially allowed was subsequently disallowed. [3]      Whereas on July 12, 1996, the appellant filed an application for extension of time to file an objection, which application was granted and the objection was considered filed on that date. [4]      Whereas the Minister of National Revenue ("Minister") confirmed the reassessment by Notice of Confirmation on May 2, 2002, that is, almost six years after the Notice of Objection was filed. [5]      Whereas the interest on the amount reassessed was increasing throughout that period. [6]      Whereas the evidence showed that the appellant had invested in a tax shelter but had not filed with the Minister a prescribed form containing prescribed information, including the identification number for the tax shelter, as required by subsections 237.1(1) and 237.1(6) of the Income Tax Act (" Act "). [7]      Whereas the appellant is therefore foreclosed to claim a loss in relation to the investment in a tax shelter pursuant to subsection 237.1(6) of the Act. [8]      Whereas it is admitted by the respondent that the Minister took six years to confirm the reassessment because he was waiting for the decision to be given in McKeown v. ...

Each case stands on its own merits. [5] In arriving at his decision the Minister relied on the following allegations of facts: "(a) the Appellant worked as a superintendent for the Payor; (admitted) (b) the Payor did not pay the Appellant on an hourly basis; (admitted) (c) the Payor did not record the hours worked by the Appellant; (admitted) (d) the Appellant was paid a monthly salary of $787.50 for the month of January, 1997; (ignored) (e) the minimum wage in Ontario during the period under review was $6.85 per hour; (ignored) (f) since the Appellant was not paid on an hourly basis and the Payor did not record the hours worked by the Appellant, the insurable hours worked by the Appellant for the period under review, were determined by dividing the total monthly earnings of $787.50 by the minimum wage of $6.86 per hour and were determined to be 115 hours;" (denied) [6] The Appellant was considered employed in insurable employment for the Payor within the meaning of the Act from September 1, 1996 to January 31, 1997. ...

Reasons for order Tardif, J.T.C.C. [1] Whereas a notice of motion to dismiss the appeal was served on January 12, 1999, at Québec; [2] Whereas counsel for the appellant failed to appear when the motion to dismiss was heard; [3] Whereas the Honourable Judge Dussault granted the motion and accordingly dismissed the appeal from the assessments issued under the Income Tax Act for the 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 taxation years; [4] Whereas costs of $400 were awarded to the respondent; [5] Whereas a motion in revocation of judgment was filed in response to that judgment on February 9, 1999; [6] Whereas counsel for the appellant submitted that the case had been discussed with counsel for the respondent in the days prior to the hearing of the motion to dismiss; [7] Whereas counsel had agreed that the motion would be made only for the payment of costs if the appellant paid $4,000 as ordered by the Tax Court of Canada on October 2, 1998, and filed a list of documents prior to the hearing date; [8] Whereas the costs were in fact paid before the hearing; [9] Whereas the list of documents was also considered to have been filed before the motion was made, on February 1, 1999, through the following undertaking: [TRANSLATION] LIST OF DOCUMENTS The documents of which the appellant has knowledge at this time that might be used in evidence have been cited in the list of exhibits filed by the respondent. ...

The doctrine of estoppel cannot be of assistance because as stated by Sarchuk J. in Waldron, "the issue of estoppel has been considered in a number of cases, and the principle which generally can be taken therefrom is that no representation involving an interpretation of the law by a servant or officer of the Crown can bind it". ...

Given the very unusual circumstances in which he obtained the position, the appellant considered his status very precarious in view of the real possibility of a challenge based on the opinion prepared by Martineau Walker. [9]            Because of that precariousness, the appellant was unable to make an informed and final decision to set up his principal residence in the Montréal area. ...

I have reviewed and considered both parties’ materials for these motions. [2]              Each of the Appellants previously sought to file Fresh Amended Notices of Appeal to replace their Amended Notices of Appeal. ...

This brings the total amount of the fees to $2,200.00. [5]         In regard to the disbursements incurred in the amount of $952.25, they are allowed in the amount of $944.14 being proved by affidavit and considered necessary to the conduct of the litigation. ...

The disbursements incurred by the applicant are justified, reasonable and considered necessary to the conduct of the matter and are therefore allowed ...

In light of the alleged risks already considered before the RPD and the RPD’s decision, which was confirmed by this Court, the applicant has not established that he would suffer irreparable harm if he was removed from Canada before his application for leave was decided. c.        ...

I consequently considered the factors listed in subsection 400(3) of the Federal Courts Rules and then adjusted the items to what I found reasonable in this type of case. ...