Search - 德国民法典第1993条

Standard of Review and Analysis [22]   It is not disputed that the standard of review in this case is that of reasonableness (Aguebor v The Minister of Employment and Immigration, 1993, 160 NR 315 (FCA), at para 4; Mavangou v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 177, at para 1, Arafa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 6, at para 28, David v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 755, at para 9). [23]   The applicant’s proposal that the decision under review is unreasonable is based on three alleged errors that would constitute erroneous findings of fact made in an abusive manner and without regard to the evidence. ...

Apotex Inc v Canada (Attorney General) (1993), [1994] 1 FC 742, at pp 766-769 (CA). [23]   In the circumstances that gave rise to the present Application, the Officer was not subject to any duty to provide to Mr. ...

However, the mere fact that a party’s position was found to be without merit is not sufficient to justify an award of costs on a solicitor-client basis: Young v Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3 at 134. [15]   In her submissions, Councillor Whalen argues that this litigation could have been avoided had FMFN’s Council informed itself about the scope of its powers under the election code. ...

Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 63 F.T.R. 312 (F.C.T.D.). ...

As the Supreme Court clarified in NFLD Nurses at paragraph 21, issues related to “alleged deficiencies or flaws in the reasons” given by an administrative decision-maker are intimately associated with reasonableness review. [19]   In addition, the burden is upon visa applicants to rebut the presumption that they are immigrants seeking to remain in Canada, and to convince a visa officer that they will leave Canada at the end of their stay (Danioko v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 479 at para 15; Li v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 791, [2001] FCJ No 1144 (QL) at para 35 [Li]; Fakhri Adhari v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 854 at para 29). [20]   As set out in Mohammed v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 992 at para 13: There are several guideposts for this analysis which are clearly established: (1) there is a legal presumption according to which any person seeking to enter Canada is presumed to be an immigrant; it is up to the applicant to rebut this presumption: Danioko v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 479 at para 15; (2) it is not for the Court to re-weigh the evidence; (3) the Officer is presumed to have reviewed all of the evidence unless the contrary is shown (Florea v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] FCJ No 598 (QL) (FCA)) and is not required to make reference to every document submitted (Hassan v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1992), 147 NR 317, [1992] FCJ No 946 (QL) (FCA); Zhou v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 465 at para 20; (4) the Officer’s reasons for decision include the form and the letter, as well as the GCMS notes prepared for the case. ...

As for the contention the Officer failed to consider the United Nations High Commission Report, there is a presumption that a decision-maker has considered all relevant material (Quebrada Batero v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 988 at para 13 citing A kram v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2004 FC 629  at para 15,  D'Souza v Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration)  (1982), [1983] 1 FC 343 at para 8 (CA), Florea v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] FCJ No 598 at para 1 (CA) [Florea]; Sivapathasuntharam v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 486 at para 24, citing Florea). ...

Deference is owed to the decision-maker and the Court does not re-weigh the evidence. [32]   In addition to the general principles regarding the assessment of reasonableness, it is well established that boards and tribunals, such as the RPD, are best placed to assess credibility (Aguebor v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] FCJ No 732 (QL) at para 4, 160 NR 315 (CA); Mavangou c Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration), 2019 FC 177 at para 11, 302 ACWS (3d) 823) and that their credibility findings should be given significant deference (Lin v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1052 at para 13, [2008] FCJ No 1329 (QL); Fatih v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 857 at para 65, 415 FTR 82; Lubana v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 116 at para 7, 228 FTR 43). ...

Bhuiyan’s submissions in this regard for reasonableness (Behary v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 794 at para 7; Rahal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 319 at paras 22 and 42; Aguebor v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] FCJ No 732 at para 4, 160 NR 315 (FCA)). ...

., Hy and Zel’s Inc v Ontario (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 675 at 707-708. [26]   In my view, Prothonotary Milczynski did not commit a palpable and overriding error in concluding that Ms. ...

Harris between 1993 and 2002, “demonstrating that he has a history of non-compliance with the CRA.” [14] The Minister then referred to a further letter sent to Mr. ...