Search - 德国民法典第1993条

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

Standard of review [9]    In Merck & Co Inc v Apotex Inc, 2003 FCA 488, at para 17-19, [2004] 2 FCR 459, the Federal Court of Appeal explained that the applicable standard of review for discretionary orders of prothonotaries was the following: 17        This Court, in Canada v Aqua-Gem Investment Ltd, [1993] 2 F.C. 425 (FCA), set out the standard of review to be applied to discretionary orders of prothonotaries in the following terms:  ...   ...

., 2013 FC 493,  Justice O’Reilly reviewed the meaning and application of this doctrine as follows: [11]      The full Latin phrase from which the term stare decisis derives is stare decisis et non quieta movere, which means “to stand by decisions and not to disturb settled matters” (Holmes v Jarrett, [1993] OJ No 679 (Ont Ct J (Gen Div) [Holmes], at para 12). ...

Yansane purportedly completed 15 years of schooling in Guinea and obtained a mechanic’s certificate in 1993, and apparently worked as a self-employed mechanic from 1994 to 2005 in the capital, Conakry. [7] Mr. ...

Slattery, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 430, in which the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the purpose or policy underlying section 241 of the ITA as follows: In my view, s. 241 involves a balancing of competing interests: the privacy interest of the taxpayer with respect to his or her financial information, and the interest of the Minister in being allowed to disclose taxpayer information to the extent necessary for the effective administration and enforcement of the Income Tax Act and other federal statutes referred to in s. 241(4). ...

[Emphasis in original] [28]   Although this type of situation has been described as “awkward and inconvenient” (Dokaj v Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2005 FC 1437 at para 39) and “anomalous” (ACL Canada Inc v MNR (1993), 107 DLR (4th) 736, 68 FTR 180 (TD) at para 55), the subsection 135(1) statutory right of appeal has been consistently found to be limited to the section 131 decision. [29]   The jurisprudence has held that penalties imposed pursuant to section 133 and resulting from a subsection 131(1) contravention finding are not reviewable in a subsection 135(1) action (Starway v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2010 FC 1208 at para 23 [Starway]). ...

This balancing is similar, though clearly not identical, to that found at s. 241 of the Income Tax Act [ITA] (see Slattery (Trustee of) v Slattery, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 430 at p 443-44 [Slattery]). ...

The Queen in right of Canada et al (1993), 107 D.L.R. (4 th) 736 at pages 755 to 757. ...

However, it is also recognized that a superior court having inherent jurisdiction may grant an interlocutory injunction where the merits of a case will be heard by another decision-maker who cannot issue injunctions (Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd, [1993] AC 334 (HL)). ...

Analysis [76]   To succeed on this application, the Applicant must show that the implementation by the PBC of the process adopted to decide matters within the 90 day decision-making period required by subsection 163(3) of the CCRR breached his section 7 rights by depriving him of his liberty and that such deprivation was contrary to the principles of fundamental justice: Cunningham v Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 143 at page 148. [77]   If it is found that the Applicant was deprived of liberty contrary to the principles of fundamental justice, then the Respondent must show that the violation of the Applicant’s rights was justifiable under section 1 of the Charter. [78]   The Applicant urges the Court to find that the process adopted by the PBC of hearing statutory release matters in the order they are received but within the required statutory time frame breached his section 7 rights and, that the process was arbitrary, contrary to section 9 of the Charter and to the principles of fundamental justice. [79]   There are three main principles of fundamental justice under section 7: (i) arbitrariness, (ii) overbreadth, and (iii) gross disproportionality. [80]   The analysis will address the principle of arbitrariness as the Applicant mentioned it but did not make submissions related to overbreadth or gross disproportionality. ...