Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Federal Court dismissed Ms. Qadri’s judicial review of the CRA’s denial of CRB benefits, holding the presence-in-Canada requirement was unambiguous and non-discretionary.
The affidavit was properly excluded because the granted extension applied only to filing the application record under Rule 309 and did not permit late service under Rule 306; the CRA Officer acted reasonably in relying on relevant records including tax returns and carried forward expenses in assessing eligibility; and there was no breach of procedural fairness because the appellant knew the case to meet and had an opportunity to respond.
Source excerpt
Federal Court allowed in part a judicial review of a CRA CRB second-review decision, setting it aside for unreasonableness and remitting it for reconsideration.
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a CERB second review, finding the applicant failed to prove $5,000 qualifying income and that no procedural fairness breach occurred.
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a CRA decision denying CRCB eligibility, finding the decision reasonable, procedurally fair, and supported by the record.
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of CRA second-review decisions denying CRB and CERB, finding no procedural unfairness and no unreasonableness.
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of CRA decisions finding Angela Singh ineligible for CERB and CRSB because she lacked proof of the required income and eligibility criteria.
Applying the reasonableness standard with deference to the Minister but verifying factual accuracy, the Court found some Minister-pleaded facts unverified and accepted documentary corroboration (GSS cheques and a MRRCP ROE) that the appellant worked for GSS in March 2011 (98 hours) and May 8–21, 2011 (56 hours); accordingly the Minister's decision was varied to reflect those additional insurable hours.
Source excerpt
The Court found a mutual intention that Ahern be an independent contractor based on objective indicia (no source deductions, T5018 slips, contract-labelled cheques, claimant deducted business expenses, use of own tools and loose per-job relationship) and determined that, on balance, the Wiebe Door factors (notably the loose relationship and worker's freedom over hours) supported an independent contractor relationship despite some factors marginally favouring employment; therefore the Minister's determinations were vacated and the appeal was allowed.
Source excerpt
Applying the Sagaz four‑fold test to the agreed facts, the Appellant was an independent contractor (owner/operator): he provided and effectively subleased the vehicle, paid insurance and operating costs, retained opportunity for profit and risk of loss, could supply a relief driver, and received commission without source deductions or benefits; therefore the work was not insurable employment and the Minister's determination was upheld.
Source excerpt
Explore more
