Search - considered

This section need not be considered here because the award of costs under that provision, if it applies, can only be made when the appeal is disposed of. [7]            Similarly, whatever broad discretionary powers this court may have to award costs under section 147 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), they need not be considered at this point (see the order of Bowie J. in Wood v. ...

(admitted) (f)             The appellant cannot be considered to have been an "employee" or to have entered into a valid contract of service with the payer during the period at issue. ... The respondent decided that the appellant could not be considered to have been an employee or to have entered into a contract of employment with the payer. ...

Feakes of Revenue Canada, who wrote to the Appellant on June 12, 1997: "In addition, since the payment is a result of a court settlement in compensation for a loss, the payment would be considered "damages", and as such cannot be considered insurable earnings. ...

In the appellant's opinion, the increased interest rates provided for in sections 4300 and 4301 of the Income Tax Regulations (" Regulations ") do not apply in the instant case. [1] The Act, she noted, does not provide for computation of interest on unpaid advance income tax. [4]            In making the assessment, the Minister considered the following facts: [TRANSLATION] (a)            for the 1995 taxation year, the appellant's total income was $19,742; (b)            the appellant's chief source of income was neither farming nor fishing; (c)            during the 1995 taxation year, the appellant's income was not subject to any source deduction; (d)            the income tax payable for the 1995 taxation year was $2,967.12; (e)            the income tax payable for the 1993 and 1994 taxation years was respectively $2,562.59 and $1,536.55; (f)             the appellant was required to pay instalments of $1,536 for the 1995 taxation year but failed to do so. [5]            It is not disputed that in 1995, the appellant was required to pay instalments of $1,536 under section 156 of the Act. ... That balance, which would have been $1.78 had the payment of April 11, 1996, been considered in computating the interest, was cancelled by the Minister on August 28, 1997. ...

She says, therefore, that she is discriminated against on the grounds of both age and marital status. [9]            The Supreme Court of Canada recently considered the operation of section 15 of the Charter, in the context of legislation providing a social benefit. ... Nor is there any factor that was referred to me in argument that would cause me to reach that conclusion without the benefit of evidence. [14]          Certainly, neither of the groups who are not eligible for the tax credit, as I have described them above, can by any stretch of the imagination qualify, as prior jurisprudence requires under section 15, as discrete and insular minorities. [15]          A similar argument with respect to the age credit available to taxpayers 65 years of age and older under subsection 118(2) was considered and rejected by Garon J. ...

(the 'TD Bank') granted Fleet an operating line of credit in the amount of $125,000 (the 'line of credit'); (h)            Fleet, Wilfred, the Appellant and other corporations, owned or managed by Wilfred, guaranteed the repayment of the said line of credit; (i)             the Appellant placed a collateral mortgage in favour of the TD Bank on 67 Ethelbert Street to further secure its repayment; (j)             on or about March 17, 1992, the TD Bank demanded payment of its funds from all parties concerned and the TD Bank commenced legal proceedings to collect its debt and enforce its security; (k)            the parties settled the litigation as per terms of the Settlement Agreement dated April 15, 1993; (l)             the Appellant refinanced the mortgage on 67 Ethelbert Street and paid the sum of $99,725.42 to the TD Bank from the mortgage funds to discharge her liability; (m)           the Appellant considered the sum of $99,725.42 referred to in (l) above as a business investment loss and requested to claimed (sic) an ABIL in the amount of $74,319.00 for the 1993 taxation year; (n)            the Appellant received no consideration from Fleet for giving the TD Bank her guarantee and the collateral mortgage on 67 Ethelbert Street to secure repayment of $125,000.00 operating line of credit provided by the TD Bank to Fleet; (o)            the Appellant did not give the TD Bank her guarantee and a collateral mortgage on 67 Ethelbert Street for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property; (p)            the Appellant was not in the business of lending money to third parties. [2]            The evidence is that a company called Lepp Fleet Commodities Inc. was carrying on business and at all relevant times its director, president and sole shareholder was Mr. ... In settling the bank claim, the Appellant paid the sum of some ninety-nine thousand odd dollars to it, considered this sum to be a business investment loss and sought to claim it as an ABIL in her 1993 taxation year. [4]            The Appellant's difficulty with the Minister's disallowance of the ABIL is based on a misconception or misunderstanding of the underlying principles relating to the deductibility of ABILs. ...

Appeal heard on August 25, 1998, at Moncton, New Brunswick, by the Honourable Judge Alain Tardif Reasons for judgment Tardif, J.T.C.C. [1] This is an appeal concerning employment held with Seashore Fisheries Ltd. from August 29, 1994, to May 27, 1995, and from June 19, 1995, to March 30, 1996. [2] The appellant’s employment was excepted from insurable employment under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act (“the Act ”) stating that employment involving persons who are related within the meaning of the Income Tax Act (sections 251 and 252) must be excepted from insurable employment unless the respondent exercises his discretion and concludes that the facts surrounding the performance of the work at issue are such that the non-arm’s-length relationship should not be considered. [3] In the case at bar, the respondent argued that the facts did not satisfy him that the non-arm’s-length relationship should be ignored. [4] At the start of the hearing, the Court clearly explained to counsel for the appellant the limits of this Court’s jurisdiction in reviewing an insurability case under paragraph 3(2)(c) of the Act, which reads as follows: (2) Excepted employment is... ... Whatever the method chosen at that stage, an appellant always has an opportunity to file or provide all the documentary evidence he or she considers relevant. [20] Generally speaking, no decision is made without the person concerned being asked to provide his or her version and the documentary evidence he or she considers useful. [21] In the case at bar, the appellant was represented by counsel and was given just such an opportunity to provide all the explanations she may have considered relevant and appropriate. ...

" [6] Each of the above criteria must be met before the employment can be considered to be insurable employment. ... La Compagnie d'immeubles Allard Ltée [1996] R.J.Q. 1566, the Quebec Court of Appeal considered the nature of a partnership contract. ...

On a motion to have the Notice of Discontinuance set aside, Brulé J. concluded that he had no such jurisdiction, as section 16.2 operated to deem the appeal to be dismissed as of the day of filing the Notice of Discontinuance. [10] In Bogie, Brulé J. referred to the Appellant's "considered decision to terminate the appeal". In the present case the Applicant made no such decision, considered or otherwise. ...

If the first addition to this building is considered to be a residential unit separate from the main house at the time the renovation began, then it would qualify as a “single unit residential complex”, and the work brought about a substantial renovation of it. If it is not considered to be a separate unit at the time the renovation began, then the effect of the work was to create a new “single unit residential complex”. ...