Search - consideration

The Respondent relies on subparagraph 97(1)(b)(iv) of the IRPA which excludes consideration of risk caused by the inability of the country of reference to provide adequate medical care. [21]   Secondly, the Respondent says that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that India is providing medical care to addicts in a persecutory manner. [22]   Finally, the Respondent argues that, although the Officer did acknowledge that a lack of social support would make the Applicant’s recovery more difficult, this is a consideration which is more relevant to an application for permanent residence under humanitarian and compassionate grounds. [23]   The Applicant’s first argument fails due to subparagraph 97(1)(b)(iv) of the IRPA which stipulates that a risk caused by the inability of the country of reference to provide adequate health or medical care will not constitute a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual punishment. ...

This definition appears to be satisfied on the facts of this case, but this provision was never addressed in the Decision. [37]   Moreover, while the Officer apparently was not satisfied that there was “sufficient consideration to exempt the application,” the Officer does not clarify what exemption mechanism she is referring to. The Officer also stated that the Applicants “have not provided sufficient submission for consideration and exemption of the criteria.” ...

Issues and Standard of Review [8]   The Applicant submits the following issues for the Court’s consideration: Did the RPD err in determining that Zagreb was a reasonable IFA for the Applicant? ... Did the RPD err in its consideration of the evidence concerning discrimination? ...

Desir’s alleged exclusion pursuant to Article 1E was unreasonable; and Whether the RPD’s consideration of subsection 97(1) of the IRPA was incomplete and improper and therefore unreasonable. [8]   It bears noting that the arguments advanced by the Applicants focussed exclusively on the RPD’s findings made against Ms. ... I also note that section 97 of the IRPA entails many of the same considerations as the Article 1E analysis. ...

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FCA 157, [2018] 2 F.C.R 344 at paras 66-68). [15]   In addition, the appellants submit that the Judge erred in his consideration of the cross-examination of certain affiants by stating at paragraph 39 of his reasons that “[n]one of the several affiants who witnessed” vote buying were “cross-examined and their evidence stands unchallenged”. ... APPENDIX First Nations Elections Act, S.C. 2014, c. 5 Loi sur les élections au sein de premières nations, L.C. 2014, ch. 5 Prohibition — any person Interdictions générales 16 A person must not, in connection with an election, 16 Nul ne peut, relativement à une élection : (a) vote or attempt to vote knowing that they are not entitled to vote; a) voter ou tenter de voter sachant qu’il est inhabile à voter; (b) attempt to influence another person to vote knowing that the other person is not entitled to do so; b) inciter une autre personne à voter sachant que celle-ci est inhabile à voter; (c) knowingly use a forged ballot; c) faire sciemment usage d’un faux bulletin de vote; (d) put a ballot into a ballot box knowing that they are not authorized to do so under the regulations; d) déposer dans une urne un bulletin de vote sachant qu’il n’y est pas autorisé par règlement; (e) by intimidation or duress, attempt to influence another person to vote or refrain from voting or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate; or e) par intimidation ou par la contrainte, inciter une autre personne à voter ou à s’abstenir de voter, ou encore à voter ou à s’abstenir de voter pour un candidat donné; (f) offer money, goods, employment or other valuable consideration in an attempt to influence an elector to vote or refrain from voting or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate. f) offrir de l’argent, des biens, un emploi ou toute autre contrepartie valable en vue d’inciter un électeur à voter ou à s’abstenir de voter, ou encore à voter ou à s’abstenir de voter pour un candidat donné. ...

Gill’s family ties should receive “some positive consideration” in the context of his application. [7]   Concerning Mr. ... Gill disagrees with the treatment of this information, that does not make it unreasonable. [25]   The decision under review was based on a full reading and consideration of all of the evidence, and reasonably reflects it.   ...

The range of reasonable outcomes expands or contracts, depending in part, on the extent to which the decision is based on policy considerations in which the tribunal has expertise. ... Santawirya was an employee for the purpose of filing a grievance under subsection 206(1) of the PSLRA must necessarily include consideration of subsection 64(4) of the PSEA, as it fixes the boundaries within which most of the material facts must be found. ...

The Officer then states his conclusion as follows: “Having taken into consideration the totality of the evidence before me, based on a balance of probabilities, I find that your declarations are more likely false than true and that your declarations are not credible.”   ... In my view, it was not unreasonable for the Officer to find the applicant’s responses when confronted with these concerns unpersuasive and to draw an adverse conclusion about the applicant’s credibility from the considerations the Officer identified. [12]   The applicant contends that it was unreasonable for the Officer to draw an adverse conclusion from the discrepancy over a date.   ...

The applicant’s first argument would therefore be that the IRPA only requires clarifications about the assets held by the applicant and his or her guarantor, but not their liabilities. [9]   The applicant also alleges that her family situation should not be taken into consideration by an immigration officer for the purpose of rejecting her application for a study permit. ... However, the applicant claims that these latter points should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of rejecting her application for a study permit. ...

Before this Court, consideration of the RPD’s decision on this matter is a question of mixed fact and law, reviewable on a standard of reasonableness. [14]   Therefore, issue (1) is reviewable on a correctness standard and all other issues are reviewable on a reasonableness standard. ... The Applicants assert that by focusing solely on their refusal to proceed with their claim on that day, the RPD overlooked other indicia of their intention to proceed, including filing all applications in a timely manner and arriving at the hearing despite previously filing a motion for disposition without a hearing. [34]   The key consideration with respect to abandonment proceedings is whether or not the claimant’s conduct amounts to an expression of “intention to diligently prosecute his or her claim” (Csikos v Canada (MCI), 2013 FC 632 at para 25). [35]   The RPD provided the Applicants with an opportunity to explain why the hearing should not be declared abandoned, and that it was their choice to not continue. ...