Search - connection

I am also of the opinion that the out-of-court settlement in another infringement case between Chanel and Bijouterie Almar Inc. has absolutely no connection with the questions at issue. ...

Relevant Provisions [17]            Subparagraph 9(1)(n)(iii) of the Trade-marks Act provides: 9. (1) No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for, 9. (1) Nul ne peut adopter à l’égard d’une entreprise, comme marque de commerce ou autrement, une marque composée de ce qui suit, ou dont la ressemblance est telle qu’on pourrait vraisemblablement la confondre avec ce qui suit: […] […] (n) any badge, crest, emblem or mark n) tout insigne, écusson, marque ou emblème: […] […] (iii) adopted and used by any public authority, in Canada as an official mark for wares or services, (iii) adopté et employé par une autorité publique au Canada comme marque officielle pour des marchandises ou services, in respect of which the Registrar has, at the request of Her Majesty or of the university or public authority, as the case may be, given public notice of its adoption and use; à l’égard duquel le registraire, sur la demande de Sa Majesté ou de l’université ou autorité publique, selon le cas, a donné un avis public d’adoption et emploi; [18]            Paragraph 12(1)(e) of the Trade-marks Act provides for when trade-marks may or may not be registered: 12. (1) Subject to section 13, a trade-mark is registrable if it is not 12. (1) Sous réserve de l’article 13, une marque de commerce est enregistrable sauf dans l’un ou l’autre des cas suivants: […] […] (e) a mark of which the adoption is prohibited by section 9 or 10; e) elle est une marque dont l’article 9 ou 10 interdit l’adoption; VII.           ...

Analysis [18]            Paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act provides that citizenship applicants bear the onus of demonstrating that they have accumulated at least three years of residence in Canada – or 1,095 days – during the relevant four-year period. [19]            This Court’s jurisprudence has recognized that Citizenship Judges are entitled to choose from among the three accepted citizenship tests (Pereira, above at para 15; Chaudhry v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 179 at para 23). [20]            The Court may not intervene unless the chosen citizenship test was applied in an unreasonable manner (Balta v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1509 at para 10). [21]            The physical presence test provided in Pourghasemi, above, is more restrictive than the qualitative residency tests elaborated in Re Papadogiorgakis [1978] 2 FC 208 (“centralized mode of living” test) and Koo (Re), [1993] 1 FC 286 (“substantial connection” test), as it requires a quantitative assessment of the number of days the Respondent has physically spent in Canada (Donohue v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 394 at para 19). [22]            In the case at hand, in applying the physical presence test found in Pourghasemi, above, the Citizenship Judge found that the Respondent was physically present in Canada for 1,093 days (Impugned Decision, Certified Tribunal Record, at pp 13 and 15). [23]            This is an unreasonable outcome which warrants the Court’s intervention. [24]            A Citizenship Judge is not entitled to simply waive the requirement of physical presence, as this would run contrary to the purpose of the Act (Pereira, above at paras 28 and 29). ...

Those facts have no connection to the self-defence argument. [28]            As a result, the Chairperson’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s defence are unreasonable because they disregarded the relevant evidence and were based instead on irrelevant evidence. [29]            Having found that the Chairperson’s analysis was unreasonable, it is unnecessary to address the questions of procedural fairness. [30]            The decision is therefore set aside, and the case is referred back to the Tribunal to be heard by a different Independent Chairperson. ...

Gard concluded that there had been no error by the CRA in preparing the reassessment, there was no additional delay by the CRA, there was no connection between the Applicant’s health condition and his ability to file his returns on time or to pay taxes on time, and that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify cancellation of the gross negligence penalties. [41]   Ms. ...

She further states that, generally, a request for relief will be granted when there is a “connection between a circumstance beyond the taxpayer’s control and the inability to file a complete and accurate return and pay any amount owing by the required due date” (Respondent’s Record, p. 37). ...

I find that the comments in Lewis, at paragraph 90, are equally applicable, adjusted for these facts, and are most appropriate to address that finding:- the assumption that Zariyah could return to Canada is pure speculation and therefore unreasonable;- the Officer does not explain how it would be feasible for Zariyah to make the journey back to Canada on her own, and there is no suggestion that anyone else would be able to accompany her; and- more importantly, given her mother’s age, economic circumstances, skill set, lack of connections in St. ...

Hafamo was interviewed in connection with the application on August 24, 2018, by an Immigration Officer from the High Commission of Canada in Pretoria. [2]   In a letter dated August 29, 2018, the Officer refused the application because the Officer found Mr. ...

He believed the union could find him through the Social Security system by using their extensive connections. ...

The RPD found that the reason the Applicants alleged being targeted was in connection with the October 2013 extortion demand by criminals to their son Carlos, who was trying to set up a business in Buenaventura. ...