Search - 2002年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

II.                 Issues [13]            The applicant raises a number of issues that, in my opinion, can be summarized as follows: A.                 ... III.              Analysis A.                 Is the application for judicial review moot? ... Rhéaume’s rights concerning those two expired inventories. [21]            I thus find that this application for judicial review is moot because the two inventories in question have expired (Plato v Canada (National Revenue), 2014 FC 1230 at para 20, aff’d 2015 FCA 217; Elkayam v Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FC 908 at paras 10 and 15, aff’d 2005 FCA 102; Weerasooriya-Epps v Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FC 688 at para 16; Cahill v Canada (Attorney General), 2002 FCT 773 at p 5). ...

Neil, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631. It was right and proper for Mr. Weinberg to inform this Court that he had filed a motion to disqualify the solicitors in the Superior Court of Quebec, and if necessary would have to do the same in this Court. [14]            The Prothonotary's decision did not decide a vital point, and his discretion was not exercised on a wrong principle. ... DATED:                                              June 2, 2006 APPEARANCES: Mr. ... Barristers & Solicitors Montreal, Quebec FOR THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR Donati Maisonneuve LLP Barriers & Solicitors Montreal, Quebec FOR THE GARNISHEE Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP Barristers & Solicitors Montreal, Quebec FOR CINAR CORPORATION ET AL ...

The Applicant shall be given 30 days to submit any additional documentation and, given his language issues, must receive all inquiries related to the reconsideration in writing or, at a minimum, written notices of any telephone inquiries. [30] Neither party sought costs, and none will be awarded.   ... Zinn" Judge   FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1301-24   STYLE OF CAUSE: MASOUD VATANKHAH v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA   PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario   DATE OF HEARING: January 23, 2025   JUDGMENT AND REASONS: ZINN J.   DATED: february 5, 2025   APPEARANCES: Masoud Vatankhah   For The Applicant (ON HIS OWN BEHALF)   Tiffany Glover   For The Respondent   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario   For The Respondent     ...

The Applicant asserts four bases for challenging this reason for denial: The decision letters contain no justification for the finding that the Applicant had not met the $5,000 income eligibility threshold; The decision failed to reasonably calculate the Applicant’s income, because the Applicant was able to establish $5,000 in invoices through her employer and $320 in income through her dog sitting business, reported as $5,300 in gross employment income in her 2019 tax assessment, and the Applicant provided bank statements establishing her eligibility for benefits based on her income over the 12 months prior to her applications; The Second Reviewer offered no explanation for finding the receipts for the dog sitting activity to be insufficient, without any reference to the Supreme Court’s decision in Stewart v Canada, 2002 SCC 46 [Stewart], and in contravention of Crook v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 1670 [Crook]; and The decision maker misinterpreted the statutes because the definition of “worker” under the relevant Acts refers to having “had” income, rather than having “received” income, especially in reference to the Applicant’s income earned through her employer. ... The Respondent did not seek costs; in the circumstances of this matter, and none will be awarded.   ... DATED: FEBRUARY 7, 2025 APPEARANCES: Sean Flaherty For The Applicant Ian Pillai For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mackenzie Lake Lawyers Barristers and Solicitors London, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent   ...

The Applicant’s compliance history for the taxation years between 1994 and 2013 is summarized below: Taxation Year(s) Tax Filing, Assessment and Collection 1994 Income tax balance of $5,786.69 collected by garnishment in December 1995 1997 Outstanding tax unpaid but removed from active collection by CRA in 2003, at which point the debt amounted to $1,096.50 2000, 2001 and 2002 Filed income tax returns late 1998, 2001 and 2002 Reported a total income of $1 2003-2013 Did not file income tax returns at all. ... "Avvy Yao-Yao Go" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1552-20   STYLE OF CAUSE: TRUDY ARONSON v THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE   PLACE OF HEARING: HELD VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE   DATE OF HEARING: december 1, 2021   JUDGMENT AND reasons: GO J.   DATED: december 21, 2021   APPEARANCES: Brigitte DioGuardi For The Applicant   Dominik Longchamps For The Respondent   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: DioGuardi Law Ottawa, Ontario   For The Applicant   Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario For The Respondent     ...

FINDING that “those who seek equity must do equity”, as per Wright v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCTD 113 at para 26. Also worth noting is Manohararaj v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness): [13]   It is important to note that the Applicants chose to disobey a valid deportation order, and a warrant was issued for their arrest. ... Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1 December 2000), IMM-6126-00 (F.C.T.D.)) [15]   In the case at bar, the Applicants have ignored a validly issued removal order. ...

Since the provision creates a mechanism to deal with exceptional circumstances and decisions under it are highly discretionary, decision-makers will be accorded a considerable degree of deference (Williams v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1303 at para 4; Legault v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCA 125 at para 15). [9]   On judicial review under a reasonableness standard, it is not the role of the reviewing court to reweigh the evidence and relevant factors (Kisana at para 24) or to substitute its own view of a preferable outcome (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at paras 59 and 61-62).   ... “John Norris” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1628-18   STYLE OF CAUSE: MINGZHONG GAN ET AL v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION   PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario   DATE OF HEARING: February 7, 2019   JUDGMENT AND REASONS: NORRIS J.   DATED: July 24, 2019   APPEARANCES: Hadayt Nazami   For The ApplicantS   Lorne McClenaghan   For The Respondent   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Jackman Nazami & Associates Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario   For The ApplicantS   Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario   For The Respondent     ...

Following her return to Canada, they continued to communicate and his first wife visited the Applicant in Albania in January, March and June of 2002. [5]   In June 2002, his first wife filed a sponsorship application for the Applicant as her fiancé. In October, 2002, they were married in Albania.   In December, 2003, the Applicant’s permanent residence application was approved after interviews due to the parties’ age difference and his lack of English. [6]   However, in June, 2003 and unbeknownst to his first wife, the Applicant began a relationship with then 14 year-old Xhuljana Cotaj, an Albanian citizen [Xhuljana] who he had met in 2002.   ... B.   ID Decision [16]   During this hearing, the Applicant changed his story again.   ...

I.   Background [2]   Before dealing with the appeal, these proceedings should be put in context. ... To do so, the conditions set out in the case law must be met (Sierra Club of Canada v Canada (Minister of Finance), 2002 SCC 41, [2002] 2 SCR 522) [Sierra Club]. [11]   The first condition is that the information to be protected must be of a confidential nature and must have always been treated as such. ... Since Hospira Healthcare Corporation v Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215, [2017] 1 FCR 331, there is no longer any doubt that the standard of review in these matters is the same one used in civil cases (Housen v Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235). ...

Any person charged with an offence has the right   11. Tout inculpé a le droit: […]   […] (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;   c) de ne pas être contraint de témoigner contre lui-même dans toute poursuite intentée contre lui pour l’infraction qu'on lui reproche;   […]   […] 13. ... [48]   I will address this argument first as it is the least controversial. [49]   Although argued extensively to the contrary in their written material, counsel for the Friedmans conceded during the hearing before me that there is no evidence at this time of any ongoing or contemplated criminal investigation by the CRA against his clients. [50]   How the CRA’s auditing and investigative functions are distinguished from one another, and when Charter protection is triggered in the event of a CRA audit or investigation are issues that were thoroughly canvassed by the Supreme Court in R v Jarvis, 2002 SCC 73 [Jarvis]. ... DATED: december 10, 2019   APPEARANCES: Me Ian Demers   For The Applicant THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE   Me Louis Frédérick Côté Me Martin Bédard   For The RespondentS CHARLES FRIEDMAN AND CLAIRE FRIEDMAN   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec   For The Applicant THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE   Spiegel Sohmer Montréal, Quebec   For The Respondents CHARLES FRIEDMAN AND CLAIRE FRIEDMAN     ...