Search - considered

A pilot is considered Disabled if either Air Canada’s medical department or Transport Canada determines that, for medical reasons, the pilot is unfit to fly. 5.       ... In order for an individual to be considered Disabled, the Air Canada medical specialists must determine that the individual is unfit to fly for medical reasons. ... The Appellant is simply considered to be on leave. 5.       Benefits under the Plan cease as soon as the Appellant is no longer an employee of Air Canada. 6.       ...

Clause 7 provided that, if a judgment of separation from bed and board or of divorce was rendered between the spouses, any gifts executed between the spouses under their marriage contract would be divided in half with the agreement that the spouses’ principal family residence should be considered as being given in half to the spouse who is not its registered owner. [4]              On September 26, 2008, Mr. ... When the clause does not include an actual obligation and an actual divestment, even if the parties made the effort to specify that it was a gift inter vivos, the gift is considered to be a gift of future property mortis causa (Roger COMTOIS, Essai sur les donations par contrat de mariage, Montréal, 1968). ... The Court considered that death was a term and that it was, therefore, a gift inter vivos. [33]         Regarding other cases to which the appellant referred, I am of the view that they are of no assistance in her case. ...

.), as amended (the Act); the notice dated June 13, 2013, concerns the 2007 and 2009 taxation years, and the notice dated May 20, 2011, concerns the 2008 taxation year. [2]              The issue is the tax treatment of the net profit realized by the appellant on disposition of immovables during each of the taxation years at issue. [3]              Concerning the 2007 taxation year, the only issue is the net profit of $41,227 that the Minister considered (to be) net business income resulting from the sale of two immovables. [4]              Concerning the 2008 taxation year, the only issue is the net profit of $9,098 that the Minister considered (to be) net business income resulting from the sale of one immovable. [5]              Concerning the 2009 taxation year, the only issue is the net profit of $53,486 that the Minister considered to be net business income resulting from the sale of three immovables. [6]              In setting the tax payable by the appellant, the Minister relied on the following facts set out in the three Replies to the three Notices of Appeal:           [translation] (a)     between 2007 and 2010, the appellant, her spouse Patrice Hébert and the Fiducie Hébert Trust (Trust), which she is a co-trustee of with her spouse, entered into 19 separate sale transactions, including six transactions by the appellant as the sole owner; (b)     in her income tax returns for 2007, 2008 and 2009, the appellant declared the disposition of the following five immovables: Immovables Acquisition date Date of sale Period of possession   75 De l'Érablière, Eastman   May 2, 2007   June 28, 2007    2 months 3135-3141 Laurier East, Montréal April 12, 2006 March 5, 2007 11 months 1460 Cabana Street, Sherbrooke May 2, 2007 June 2, 2008 11 months 1591-1595 Montarville, Longueuil June 20, 2008 May 20, 2009 11 months 1631 de Lorimier, Longueuil August 18, 2008 May 19, 2009  9 months (c)     the average period of possession of these five immovables was 9 months; (d)    in August 2006, the appellant and her spouse claim that they wanted to move to the Eastern Townships in July 2008 and sell the immovable at 75 De l'Érablière Street in Eastman so that they would not have to manage it from a distance; (e)     in November 2006, the Trust acquired four rental immovables in the Montréal area; (f)     in June 2007, the Trust acquired a rental immovable in the Montréal area; (g)     the pretext related to the expected or unexpected move to the Eastern Townships did not stop the appellant from purchasing and reselling immovables; (h)     the appellant claims that she wanted to keep the immovables in order to generate rental income and extra income during retirement even though          (i)   her rental losses were $24,734 for 2004 and 2009;          (ii)  the appellant did not keep any immovable for the long term. ... This criterion applies if, at the time the property was acquired, the taxpayer had considered the possibility of selling the property for a profit if the long-term investment project could not be achieved for whatever reason. [21]         In this case, the appellant has business experience and a business background. ...

This includes considering and weighing all relevant circumstances, including those enumerated in the Rules which are relevant in the particular circumstances of the case.   5)      The acts of a party and events prior to the commencement of the legal proceeding may, in appropriate circumstances, be considered in awarding costs.   6)      The successful party’s actual costs may be considered and taken to account in appropriate cases. ... It appears that it can only be considered to have been intentionally deceitful. ...   [17]         However, it is not entirely clear to me that CRA’s misleading, incorrect and deceptive communications with the Martins warrant an award of solicitor/client costs, even though they would surely be considered reprehensible, scandalous and outrageous to the Canadian taxpayers CRA serves. ...

In reaching this conclusion, I considered, among others, the following factors: (a)   At the time, Sylvain Doucet had financial difficulties to the extent that he thought it was necessary to borrow $5,000 from his parents. ... The work performed does not justify the expense related to the appellant's duties, even if Sylvain Doucet were considered to have 195 clients instead of 80 or 100. (b) When the appellant's duties are considered, there is only a small amount of work to be done for the bookkeeping. ...

They submit that all such conduct was already considered by the Court at that hearing and thus that the Respondent is estopped from raising it again in this motion. [38]         There is no merit to this position. First, it is not clear to me on the record whether the Court even considered on April 3, 2012 whether the Appellants’ appeals should be dismissed. More importantly, even if the Court had considered that issue, the legal question that would have been considered was whether the Appellants’ conduct up to April 3, 2012 was sufficient to warrant a dismissal. ...

    [19]         Employment which is not held under an express or implied contract of service is not considered pensionable employment. ... As noted in Royal Winnipeg Ballet at para. 64, the relevant factors must be considered “in the light of” the parties' intent. ... Conversely, if he did not “ordinarily” report for work in Canada, the time spent in Canada working for the Appellant will not be considered pensionable employment in Canada ...

Cooke, when considered in conjunction with the services provided by Mr.  ... The fact that the appellants' son was a tenant of the Mississauga property is considered in the context of determining whether the property was used to make a profit and thus whether it was a source of income earned from a business or property. ... Thus, where the nature of a taxpayer's venture contains elements which suggest that it could be considered a hobby or other personal pursuit, but the venture is undertaken in a sufficiently commercial manner, the venture will be considered a source of income for the purposes of the Act ...

I hope this can be taken into account and that my interest and penalty charges will be re-considered. ... We have also considered whether you acted quickly to remedy any delay.  ... We have considered the above facts and have determined that the application of the late-filing penalties against the 2000, 2001 and 2002 T1 return was correct.  ...

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2004), 257 F.T.R. 143, 2004 FC 1275). [19]             In this case, the applicant is unable to indicate what other criteria, if any, the immigration officer should have considered in addition to or in the place of the criteria found in the guidelines. ... The decision to grant a visa exemption is a discretionary decision and the immigration officer considered all relevant factors, including the issue of the best interest of any child affected by the decision. ... The officer’s reasons for decision show that she considered all the evidence. [23]             It is true that the applicant submitted two letters from her employer that mention that the family considered her to be a member of their family, but her employer did not elaborate on the effect that the applicant’s departure would have on their two children. ...