Search - considered

He applied for judicial review of that decision but the application was subsequently withdrawn, as the matter was remitted back to the Minister on consent. [10]            During the third administrative review of the applicant’s taxpayer relief request conducted by the Minister, the following facts were considered: 1.                    ... For this last point, the respondent points to the applicant’s cross-examination when he was asked to explain discrepancies in his position regarding his employment status. [19]            During the hearing, counsel for the applicant attempted to bring the debate back to the issue of whether the applicant should have been considered, for the relevant period, an employee of Steelmatic or an independent contractor. ...

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1247 Date: 20161108 Docket: IMM-2233-16 Citation: 2016 FC 1247 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, November 8, 2016 PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Martineau BETWEEN: DIENEBA KOITA alias ALIMA DIAWARA Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent DECISION AND REASONS [1]                This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB] rendered on May 10, 2016, dismissing the applicant’s application and confirming the Refugee Protection Division’s [RPD] decision that the applicant is not considered a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 [IRPA]. [2]                The applicant, who is originally from Mali, left her country to seek refuge in Canada on March 22, 2015. ... The member then considered this contradiction as major and sufficient to reject the entire application for refugee protection. ...

In that decision, another CRA Team Leader denied the Applicant’s request for the cancellation of penalties and arrears interest assessed for the 2012 and 2013 tax years, on the basis of a lack of extraordinary circumstances. [2]                In assessing the Applicant’s written and oral submissions, I have considered the fact that he is self-represented and that I should allow his pleadings considerable latitude. ... The responsibility to include all of a taxpayer’s revenue earned during a year belongs to that taxpayer and it cannot be transferred on the CRA just because the latter is eventually provided with a copy of the T3 and T5 slips issued by financial institutions. [21]            Second, the Team Leader considered all representations made by the Applicant in reviewing the Second Level Request, and did not rely on irrelevant considerations. ...

In a carefully considered judgment the learned Assistant Chairman of the Income Tax Appeal Board, Mr. ... On the evidence before him he held, however, that for the year 1946 $8,700 should be added to the amount of the assessment and a like amount deducted from that made in the year 1947: for the year 1948 he considered the amount as found by the Board should remain unchanged and, with these variations, dismissed the appeal. ...

The exemption of pipe lines by s. 3(1) of The Pipe Line Taxation Act extended only to pipe lines "situated outside of any city, town or village", and the pipe line here in question was within an area which, for assessment purposes, was considered to be a town; the word "town" in The Pipe Line Taxation Act was not limited to a town formally incorporated under The Town and Village Act. ... Since the assessor is to assess all taxable property within the boundaries of the district, which, for that purpose, is "deemed [Page 351] to be", i.e., as if it. were, a town incorporated by law, he must include the property in question; it is within an area which, in law, for assessment purposes, is considered to be within such a town. ...

The appellant in Court file A-106-00, who is considered a "major witness", has been subpoenaed to testify at the Inquiry beginning on May 29, 2000. ... They contend that they will suffer prejudice if the Inquiry hears the testimony of the appellant in Court file number A-106-00 and the other major witness prior to the disposition of the appeals from the order of Lemieux J. of December 3, 1999. [6]      The respondents say, on the other hand, that the issue of possible prejudice was considered and rejected in the Trial Division and in this Court when the motions to stay the Inquiry were dismissed and that no new evidence of possible prejudice has been put forward by either of the appellants. ...

F-27 as:... any substance or mixture of substances manufactured, sold or represented for use in (a) the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder, abnormal physical state, or the symptoms thereof, in man or animal, (b) restoring, correcting or modifying organic functions in man or animal, or (c) disinfection in premises in which food is manufactured, prepared or kept....les substances ou mélanges de substances fabriqués, vendus ou présentés comme pouvant servir_: a) au diagnostic, au traitement, à l'atténuation ou à la prévention d'une maladie, d'un désordre, d'un état physique anormal ou de leurs symptômes, chez l'être humain ou les animaux; b) à la restauration, à la correction ou à la modification des fonctions organiques chez l'être humain ou les animaux; c) à la désinfection des locaux où des aliments sont gardés. [11] It is argued for Flora that the CITT should have considered the existence of drug identification numbers for the products in issue as conclusive evidence that they are "medicaments". ... It is suggestive, though of course not conclusive, that vitamin products intended for human use are expressly included in sub-subheadings as "medicaments" in Schedule I of the Customs Tariff. [18] It was also argued for Flora that the CITT was wrong to conclude that a liquid preparation intended to be taken by the spoonful or capful cannot reasonably be considered to be a "beverage" within the meaning of Schedule I. ...

(iii) any expense incurred by him (other than an expense incurred in drilling or completing an oil or gas well or in building a temporary access road to, or preparing a site in respect of, any such well) for the purpose of determining the existence, location, extent or quality of a mineral resource in Canada including any expense incurred in the course of (A) prospecting, (B) carrying out geological, geophysical or geochemical surveys, (C) drilling by rotary, diamond, percussion or other methods, or (D) trenching, digging test pits and preliminary sampling, but not including (E) any Canadian development expense, or (F) any expense that may reasonably be considered to be related to a mine that has come into production in reasonable commercial quantities or to be related to a potential or actual extension thereof, (iii.1) any expense incurred by him after November 16, 1978 for the purpose of bringing a new mine in a mineral resource in Canada into production in reasonable commercial quantities and incurred before the coming into production of the new mine, including (A) clearing, removing overburden and stripping, and (B) sinking a mine shaft, constructing an adit or other underground entry,... but, for greater certainty, shall not include (vi) any consideration given by the taxpayer for any share or any interest therein or right thereto, except as provided by subparagraph (v), or (vii) any expense described in subparagraph (v) incurred by any other taxpayer to the extent that the expense was, (A) by virtue of that subparagraph, a Canadian exploration expense of that other taxpayer, (B) by virtue of subparagraph 66.2(5)(a)(v), a Canadian development expense of that other taxpayer, or (C) by virtue of subparagraph 66.4(5)(a)(iii), a Canadian oil and gas property expense of that other taxpayer, but any assistance that a taxpayer has received or is entitled to receive after May 25, 1976 in respect of or related to his Canadian exploration expense shall not reduce the amount of any of the expenses described in any of subparagraphs (I) to (v); [my emphasis] 66.1(6)a) "frais d'exploration au Canada " d'un contribuable s'entend des dépenses suivantes engagées après le 6 mai 1974: [...] ... Magee, while correctly acknowledging that the context and purpose of a statutory provision must always be considered, comment that " [i]t would introduce intolerable uncertainty into the Income Tax Act if clear language in a detailed provision of the Act were to be qualified by unexpressed exceptions derived from a court ' s view of the object and purpose of the provision ": Principles of Canadian Income Tax Law 2nd ed., 1997 at pp. 475-76. ...

" In counsel's view, a business such as that of the appellant must develop a step at a time; the first step being the development of a key rider, and thus any losses sustained in the process of developing the key rider are to be considered as losses sustained during the start-up period of the business.      ... We note that as late as 1991, i.e. three years after the taxation years at issue and at the time the appellant's daughter started training at Millar Brooke Farm, Ian Millar's farm, her father still considered her daughter to be at "the university of the horse. ...

  [8]                Some of the circumstances considered by the Board of Referees were the claimant’s state of depression at the time, which diminished his ability to [translation] “analyze events dispassionately and with all the necessary objectivity”; the claimant’s conviction that he would be laid off if he did not resign and that he would struggle to find new employment with a criminal record; and his manager’s failure to offer him leave without pay, reinforcing his impression that resigning was his only option (Reasons, at pages 4 and 5).   ... The word “fear” or “fears” should not be considered in isolation but together with the modifying words in s. 810.1(1) “on reasonable grounds.” ...