Search - consideration

The application is referred back for consideration by another citizenship judge. ...

CONSIDERATION [5]                  Defendant, as an initial ground for striking out the Statement of Claim, points out that, other than for additions to the damages claimed, it is identical to an earlier Statement of Claim filed by Mr Armaly in action T-859-01, which was dismissed, ex parte for delay, by Madam Justice McGillis on 10 December 2002. ...

Castillo submits one further factor for the consideration of this Court: that the action brought by the Plaintiffs has no merit, lacks evidence supporting its claims, and is frivolous and vexatious in nature. ...

Moreover, the defendant did not refer to any case law in which questions similar to this had been characterized as pure questions of law and decided under the exceptional framework of paragraph 220(1)(a) of the Rules. [16]       In addition, to come back to another requirement mentioned in Webster- no dispute as to any material fact- I am not satisfied that the differences of opinion between the parties on the fulfilment of the conditions contained in the July 7, 2004 e-mails cannot be seen precisely as a dispute as to material facts. [17]       It appears, in fact, that these differences of opinion between the parties call for an analysis of the considerations reviewed by the Court in Cellular Rental Systems Inc., supra, at paragraphs 17 to 19. [18]       Clearly, the actual causes of the fire aboard the defendant's vessel, as the plaintiffs have understood them since August 10, 2004, are facts that are not admitted by the defendant and that might retroactively affect the validity of any agreement on July 7, 2004. [19]       For the preceding reasons, therefore, I am of the view that the questions submitted by the defendant do not clear the first step under paragraph 220(1)(a) of the Rules and cannot be referred on to a second step for adjudication on the merits. [20]       The defendant's motion will therefore be dismissed, with costs under column III of the Tariff. [21]       As to the affidavit of Mr. ...

Hayman certainly had no duty to warn. [16]            It is well established that the scope of judicial review of discretionary decisions made under sections of the Act commonly referred to as the "fairness provisions", is limited to reviewing whether the discretion was exercised in good faith, with regard for relevant considerations and without regard to extraneous factors, and, where required, in accordance with the principles of natural justice. ...

By contrast any decision based on one-sided argument could potentially set a wrong or misleading precedent, could cause havoc with the administration of the GST and would not be in the best interest of an efficient and orderly administration of justice. [32]            Accordingly, taking into account the foregoing considerations (which were not addressed by Prothonotary Morneau) I feel compelled to allow the appeal from the decision of Prothonotary Morneau and grant the extension to file the respondent's application record. [33]            However to compensate the applicant for any inconvenience resulting from this very avoidable delay, the applicant shall have his costs in this appeal and in the motion before Prothonotary Morneau on a party and his own solicitor basis, payable regardless of the final outcome of the his original application (dated November 24, 2003). [34]            To avoid any further delays, the respondent shall only have 48 hours to file his application record. [35]            If requested, the Court will favourably consider any request by the applicant to postpone, by up to three months, the hearing of the motion slated for April 6, 2005. ...

Without finally resolving the issue, this seems to me somewhat of an over-simplification for CCRA is bound as are all others who apply federal statutes to do so in a manner consistent with the Human Rights Act.             5)         The respondent says no discriminatory practice was attributable to the CCRA under section 7 of the Act, a matter which need not be resolved for purposes of this decision. [14]            For the reasons set out an Order goes allowing the application for judicial review, remitting the matter for consideration by the Human Rights Commission with, presumably, the Attorney General of Canada representing the interests of all elements of the Government of Canada involved in this matter. [15]            As a gratuitous comment, I would urge that those concerned, after spending years in resolving pay equity complaints and seeking to do so equitably, should review the process that the complainants here perceive as continuing inequity in payment that was intended to be addressed earlier. ...

The application for judicial review is allowed and the file is referred for consideration by a differently constituted appeal board.       ...

The consideration for the contract involved was 10.5 million UK pounds. [6]                 The Sable Offshore Energy Project is located in Nova Scotia, Canada, as well as the Nova Scotia Offshore region. ...

In such a case, consideration may be given to waiving interest in all or in part for the period from when payments commence until the amounts owing are paid provided the agreed payments are made on time. 7. ...