Search - consideration

Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 1179. [9]   The Prothonotary further indicated as a more important consideration that she was not satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time, due to the lack of apparent merit in the Applicant’s application. [10]   The standard of review for an order of a Prothonotary is whether it contains an error of law or a palpable and overriding error of fact: Hospira Health Corp. ...

He is now seeking judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Appeal Division [IAD] that dismissed his request for relief on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] considerations. ...

As stated by the Judge, there must be an objective, mutual intention to create legal relations, consideration flowing in return for a promise, and the terms of the agreement must be objectively certain. ...

Canada, 2014 FCA 240 at paras 6-7, and authorities cited therein. [13]   Thus, an order will issue adjourning the motion for consideration and determination by the hearing panel in the application for judicial review. ...

(Zhao at paragraph 15, my emphasis) [10]   The RAD did not take into consideration how the Respondent crossed into Canada. ...

A party who has cross-examined the deponent of an affidavit filed in a motion may not subsequently file an affidavit in that motion, except with the consent of all other parties or with leave of the Court. [11]   The factors to be considered on a Rule 84(2) application are (Pfizer Canada Inc v Rhoxalpharma Inc, 2004 FC 1685 at para 16): The relevancy of the proposed affidavit The absence of prejudice to the opposing party Assistance to the Court The overall interests of justice [12]   The final factor includes consideration of whether the further evidence was available and/or could not be anticipated as being relevant at an earlier date (Janssen-Ortho Inc v Canada (Health), 2009 FC 1179 at para 9). [13]   The Plaintiff submits that the Further Supplemental Hart Affidavit contains evidence that is relevant to the issues on the Summary Judgment Motion, including the credibility of Mike Popowich. ...

Having reached that conclusion, the RAD found the rest of the Applicant’s narrative was not credible. [6]   The Respondent concedes that the RAD erred in its consideration of the Basis of Claim and the Notice of Arrest but argues that the Applicant still has not shown that he was wanted by the Public Security Bureau. ...

The overriding consideration is whether it is in the interests of justice that the extension of time be granted. [4]   The appellant asserts that the Federal Court erred in failing to consider the fact that the respondent’s election appeal and subsequent application for judicial review seek to have a Chief, whose eligibility and integrity have not been questioned, removed from office on the basis of allegations that the fourth place candidate was ineligible for election and had engaged in corrupt practices. [5]   It is true that while the Court stated that it had considered all of the material adduced by the parties, it did not make specific reference to this argument in its order. ...

Fewer options are granted under stock purchase plans. [7]   The appellant also argues that he was denied procedural fairness because he legitimately and reasonably expected that he would be provided the same process considerations as the successful SDL Optics employees. [8]   Again, I disagree. ...

New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, the standard of reasonableness requires that a decision be transparent, justifiable and intelligible, falling within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes that are defensible on the law and the facts. [9]   Upon review of the records filed and consideration of the arguments advanced, I am satisfied that the application for judicial review should be granted. [10]   In my opinion, the RAD misapplied the legal test for its review of the RPD decision, when it said the following: [12] The RAD is to review the raised issues with the RPD’s findings of law, fact (and mixed fact and law), which raised no issues of credibility of oral evidence, applying the correctness standard. vi [13] In assessing the credibility of oral evidence, the RPD may have a meaningful advantage, as the RPD directly sees, observes, and selects questions to ask of witnesses etc. ...