To this end, Dr. Akbari signed the purchase and sale agreement with Cheema and her spouse. Cheema and Akbari also agreed that Akbari would have no material interest in the property, would not pay the purchase price or expenses and would not live in the house. It is not absolutely necessary for all of the above elements to be present for there to be an agency relationship. If there are more of the above than there are, there will probably be agencies. The acquisition of the insurance is intended for the insurance of the lessor`s land and the lessor has given PMC the power to acquire the insurance on behalf of the lessor. The lessor also gave PMC the authority to use the money collected as rent to pay for incidental costs related to the lessor`s operation. The payment of these fees is subject to the control of the lessor by the monthly declaration and the obligation to have approved expenses on a certain amount. These acquisitions meet the Agency`s criteria for approval and control of key features, which give PMC the authority to engage the lessor with respect to third-party obligations with respect to these acquisitions. As a result, PMC acts as the lessor`s agent for the insurance of the property and the payment of incidental costs. To this end, the principles of Agency law – not the principles of fiduciary law – govern a simple relationship of trust.
A simple trust is a trust in which the legal owner is a property with the sole obligation to transfer the property to the beneficiary upon request. Otherwise, a simple agent has no power, discretion or independent responsibility. (see Trident, ibid.). In these circumstances, the agency`s law applies, because the relationship between the agent and the beneficiary is primarily a primary agent relationship: an agent generally does not take the risk of losing a transaction with a third party. If, for example.B. the value of the property decreases after the acquisition by the third party, the loss would normally be borne by the client. That does not mean that an agent has no risk. For example, an agent could be held liable for damage caused by his own negligence. Whether a person has liability insurance or insurance on the property himself can indicate whether or not two people have an agency relationship with respect to the property. If the person does not own the property, but has the responsibility of the property towards its owner, for example.
B a broker, it is more likely that this person will have insurance with respect to his liability than for the property himself. The tax court`s comments reflect private law decisions concerning service agencies. Trident Holdings Ltd/Danand Investments Ltd., (1988) 49 DLR (4th) (ONCA), shows that a titleholder is an agent only if the titleholder cannot use, discard, savor or own the property. In addition, Trident states that the holder of the title cannot even be considered an agent if the holder has no power, discretion or independent liability. In Trident, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that danand, the defendant, held ownership of the land as an agent and not as an agent because Danand had no power or property on the land. Danand`s sole mission was to “maintain the right to the country and make the offers of the beneficiaries.” Following the review of the Agency`s legal approach, this article examines three examples in Canadian tax law where the existence of a relationship between senior agents is significant: (i) the effective beneficiary test in Canada`s tax treaties; (ii) personal income tax and section 325 of the Excise Act; and (iii) the gst/HST reduction for new housing under Section 254 of the Excise Tax Act. An agency relationship can be established in at least two ways: in the absence of a written agency agreement, the parties` behavior determines whether they want to establish an agency relationship.