Search - 德国民法典第1993条

., [1993] 2 FC 425, 61 FTR 44).  Should either of these two situations arise, the Court then has jurisdiction to consider de novo the issue on appeal. ...

., [1993] 2 FCR 425 at p. 463 (CA) [Aqua-Gem]). [4]                However, on August 31, 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal issued its decision in Hospira Healthcare Corporation v. ...

“Equity aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights” and the lack of attention and undue delay by Pay Audio in rectifying the error undermines its arguments for equitable relief. [37]   As reflected in the Decision, the Minister’s Delegate carefully reviewed and considered Pay Audio’s remission request on its own merits, taking into account all the facts and arguments raised by KPMG, to determine whether the collection of tax was unreasonable or unjust, or whether it was otherwise in the public interest to grant relief under subsection 23(2) of the FAA. [38]   It is a well-recognized principle that a decision-maker is presumed to have weighed and considered all the evidence presented to it unless the contrary is shown (see Florea v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] FCJ No 598 (FCA) (QL) at para 1). ...

Campbell invokes Seth v Canada, [1993] 3 FC 348 (CA) [Seth], in which Justice Robert Décary observed that “[t]he use of compelled testimony […] is protected in subsequent criminal proceedings by section 13 of the Charter.” ...

In support of their argument, the Applicants cite Canada (Attorney General) v Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689 (Ward). ...

Moreover, she argues that the RAD must analyze the specific conclusions of the psychological report with regards to the second prong and that the RAD’s finding with respect to her resourcefulness is gratuitous (Sharbdeen v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] FCJ No 634 (TD) at para 7). [20]   The Minister responds that the RAD’s decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness and that the ability to respond to new issues on appeal is reviewable on a correctness standard (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Singh, 2016 FCA 96 at para 29; Oluwaseyi Adeoye v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 246 at para 9 [Oluwaseyi Adeoye]). [21]   The Minister submits that Ms. ...

Vall’s tribe and to his ex-wife’s date of birth, are a well-accepted basis for a negative credibility finding (Aguebor v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 NR 315 (FCA)). [19]   I accept that there may be circumstances where it would be unreasonable to expect claimants to review the information on their visa applications, such as when the applicant does not understand the language of the form. ...

The RAD added that stateless claimants must (i) establish the country or countries of their former habitual residence, and (ii) have a well-founded fear of persecution or risk of harm in any one of these countries (Maarouf v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 FC 723, 1993 CarswellNat 186 (FCA) [Maarouf]). [9]   The RAD then found that the Applicants’ only country of former habitual residence was the UAE. ...

See also: Aguebor v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (FCA), (1993) 160 NR 315, 42 ACWS (3d) 886; Liu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1027 at para 16; Devanandan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 768 at para 15; Zhou v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 619 at para 26; Paul-Forest v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 815 at para 15; Rahal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 319 at para 22, 213 ACWS (3d) 10. [22]   The RPD’s finding that there was no credible basis for the claim under subsection 107(2) of the IRPA must also be assessed according to the standard of reasonableness (Olaya Yauce v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 784 at para 5; Mohamed v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 598 at para 22; Iyombe v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 565 at para 4; Hernandez v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 144 at para 3). [23]   When a decision is reviewed according to the standard of reasonableness, the analysis must be concerned with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision‑making process and with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and the law (Dunsmuir, at para 47). ...

True, a decision-maker is presumed to have weighed and considered all the evidence presented to him or her unless the contrary is shown (Florea v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] FCJ No 598 (FCA) (QL) at para 1). ...