Search - considered

It is considered that subsections 1100(15) to (20) extend the philosophy of subsections 1100(11) to (14) to 'leasing properties'. [13] Therefore, in summary subsection 1100(17) defines 'leasing property' as depreciable property, other than real property, used by the taxpayer principally for the purpose of gaining or producing gross revenue that is rent or leasing revenue. ... Revenue derived from the right of a person or partnership (except the owner) to use or occupy the property, and revenue from services offered that are ancillary to such use or occupation, are considered to be rent. ...

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. ...