Search - considered

Resolution of the uncertainty is appropriate and necessary to enable the Appellant and the Federal Court of Appeal to know with certainty the basis upon which the appeal should be considered. ... It is, therefore, inappropriate for me to re-argue the Respondent's case. [3] In view of the position taken by counsel for the Respondent, I have considered counsel's request that I clarify my Judgment, notwithstanding the absence of the Notice of Motion which Rule 65 requires, and I have concluded that the formal Judgment correctly expresses my decision in the case, but that I should issue Supplementary Reasons for Judgment to clarify the basis of the decision. ...

They were disallowed on the basis that they were either personal expenses of Réal Bernier, Agence's majority shareholder, or expenses considered to be unreasonable given the income generated by Agence. ... Bernier's income, as shareholder benefits under subsection 15(1) of the Act, the expenses claimed by Agence for the use of the bus and certain expenses paid by Agence that the Minister considered to be Mr. ...

M.N.R. et al, [1986] 1 F.C. 485, Rouleau J. stated at pages 488-489:                 Over the years, the meaning of the word "event" has been judicially considered in various and different circumstances. ... My view does not necessarily win the day for the Appellants, however, because paragraph 344(3)(a) is only the first matter to be considered. [8]            Should I draw any conclusion from the fact that the reasons for the majority in the Federal Court of Appeal and the formal judgment of that Court are silent with respect to the trial before Judge McArthur in this Court? ...

., 178 N.R. 361, Décary J.A. of the Federal Court of Appeal clearly stated that, in applying subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii) of the Unemployment Insurance Act (now paragraph 5(3)(b) of the Employment Insurance Act), what must be considered is whether the Minister's decision "resulted from the proper exercise of his discretionary authority", and that the appellant must first present "evidence of wilful or arbitrary conduct by the Minister, evidence which is generally not easy to obtain". [7]            In Her Majesty the Queen v. ... [14]          Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, particularly the testimony, the admissions and the documentary evidence, I am satisfied that the appellants have not been able to prove on the balance of evidence that the Minister acted wilfully or arbitrarily or in a manner contrary to law in making his decisions. [15]          The appellants' employment during the periods at issue is therefore excluded from insurable employment under subsection 5(2) of the Employment Insurance Act. [16]          The appeals are dismissed and the Minister's decisions dated May 27, 1999, are confirmed. [17]          The appellants testified honestly and openly at the hearing and demonstrated that they acted in good faith when they applied for employment insurance benefits for 1997 and 1998, given that they had been making the same applications since 1989 and been considered insurable from 1989 to 1996. ...

In the circumstances of this case, considering the terms of the Minutes of Settlement and the Supreme Court Order, I am satisfied that the payments made by the Applicant to the mortgage (sic) should be considered maintenance payments for the support of the children. [8]            The Order of the Court issued with the above "Reasons for Judgment" read in part as follows: THIS COURT ORDERS that maintenance has been paid from April 1, 1995 to October 22, 1999 in accord with the Order of this Court of October 18, 1995 in the amount of $58,883.72; THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the application to cancel arrears of maintenance is allowed save and except $1,568 [3] owing for January, 1998 through to August, 1998; [9]            The Agency disallowed as deductions to the Appellant, the amounts in issue described above. ... Although subsection 60.1(3) provides relief in respect of payments if an Order provides that they are to be considered to have been paid, none of the Appellant's mortgage payments described in the 1999 Order qualified as a "support amount". ...

Briefly, I will tell you that I am the breadwinner in a single-parent family with one child who is considered "disabled" because he has to take medication every day if he is to be able to keep up the same pace (or relatively the same) as other children his age at school. ... No. 36, in which I mentioned the relevant case law in paragraph 15: The concept of the receipt of an amount and the relevant taxation year has already been considered by the courts; I am referring, inter alia, to Vegso v. ...

The Court requested a transcript of those arguments, which was received on January 12, 2000. [3]            The parties agree that the evidence established the truth of the facts alleged in the notice of appeal, the notices of intervention and the respondent's replies to those notices. [4]            The following facts are therefore considered to be proven: [TRANSLATION] By notice of assessment dated May 11, 1998, the Minister of National Revenue assessed the appellant for employment insurance and unemployment insurance premiums, including applicable interest, for 1995, 1996 and 1997. ... This comment by the Federal Court of Appeal applies to the instant case. [21]          The judgments rendered in the following cases were brought to the attention of the Court, which considered them carefully:                -                Kawa v. ...

Gunn and I have specialized and successfully treated fibromyalgia patients with this technique and are considered as the two medical practitioners of last resort for patients with F.M.S. ... I think technically the travel expenses would be considered additional medical expenses, so perhaps-- HIS HONOUR: Well, the auditor can surely add the two figures. ...

The Appellant was only created to assist in gathering useful information for police agencies. [21] I considered the question of drawing an inference that the money was in fact provided for the Appellant and notwithstanding the intervening activities of the City of Fredericton and the police coordinator, the Appellant was the ultimate beneficiary of the funds. I rejected that position for the reasons set above. [22] The question of employer by delegation was considered in Minacori c. ...

In so reassessing the Appellant for the 1996 and 1997 Taxation Years, determining the Appellant's CTB for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 "base taxation years" and redetermining the Appellant's GST Credit for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 Taxation Years, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact: (a) at all relevant times to the years in appeal, the Appellant was married to, lived with and was supported by the Spouse; (b) the Appellant and her Spouse had three children (hereinafter the "Children") as follows: Name Date of Birth Nicholas Patrick Gartner February 26, 1979 Becky Jo Gartner April 16, 1980 Jordan Steven Gartner July 21, 1982 (c) the combined net incomes of the Appellant and the Spouse (hereinafter referred to as the "Family Net Income") are as follows: 1995 1996 1997 Net Income – Appellant $32,191 $33,488 $35,082 Net Income – Spouse 43,710 52,834 51,025 Family Net Income $75,901 $86,322 $86,107 (d) the Appellant's Spouse is considered a "cohabiting spouse" of the Appellant; [5] Finally, the Appellant was able to afford to proceed to divorce and obtained a judgment dated April 4, 2000 (Exhibit A-1, Tab 2) which reads, in part, that the couple "commenced living separate and apart (although under the same roof) on March 28, 1992" and that they continued so until the date of judgment. ... The Court has considered the facts in this matter and the law relating to this appeal as to the award of costs. ...