Search - consideration

It is the Visa Officer, and not this Court, who makes this determination based upon a review and a consideration of the factual evidence provided by the Applicant. [21]   Although the Applicants claim that the Visa Officer failed to consider their evidence, this claim is not supported by the decision which shows that the Officer considered the evidence but had concerns with the evidence. ...

State Department reports have continued to be updated in the NDP, and the NDP that was in effect at the time of the PRRA decision contained the 2017 version of the report. [17]   The officer took into consideration the applicant’s document regarding the detention of deported individuals, which was a Response to Information Request from the Immigration and Refugee Board dated May 29, 2012. ...

Accordingly, the remainder of the issues were subject to review on a reasonableness standard whereby the Court may only intervene if the Decision falls outside the “range of possible acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law” (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2000 SCC 9 at para 47). [5]   The Applicant further submitted that his adjournment request was unreasonably denied by the RPD without consideration of the factors described in the Federal Court of Appeal decision Siloch v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 10 Admin. ...

I agree that, at first sight, the officer’s reasons read like a consideration of humanitarian and compassionate factors, giving rise to concerns as to whether she applied the correct test. ...

Having regard to the principle discussed in Ward, above, at para 18, this is not the stage where this question should be removed from further consideration.   ...

Justice Lafrenière BETWEEN: SATINDER DHILLON AND EMMET PIERCE IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF AGENT Applicants and THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, MAXIME BERNIER, CHRISTIAN ROY IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF AGENT, AND THE PEOPLE'S PARTY OF CANADA Respondents ORDER AND REASONS [1]   On February 15, 2019, the Applicants commenced the underlying application for judicial review of the decision made by the Chief Electoral Officer [the CEO] dated January 17, 2019 to register the People’s Party of Canada, under leader Maxime Bernier, as a Registered Party under section 390 of the Canada Elections Act, SC 2000, c 9 [CEA]. [2]   In the Notice of Application, the Applicants allege that the CEO did not fulfill his statutory duties under the CEA in relation to the Applicants by failing to ensure “the accuracy in the application for registration as made by Bernier’s Party” (section 385) or, alternatively, by failing “to reassess the eligibility of Bernier’s Party with consideration of Applicant’s intellectual property” (subparagraph 387(a)(i)). [3]   The CEO has moved for an order striking the Notice of Application on the grounds that the Applicants lack standing to bring the application or, alternatively, that the proceeding is time-barred. ...

The Officer’s application of the legal tests to the facts is a question of mixed fact and law, and is reviewable against the standard of reasonableness (Talipoglu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 172 at para 22). [17]   Subsection 113(a) of the IRPA provides as follows: 113 Consideration of an application for protection shall be as follows: (a) an applicant whose claim to refugee protection has been rejected may present only new evidence that arose after the rejection or was not reasonably available, or that the applicant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection; 113 Il est disposé de la demande comme il suit: a) le demandeur d’asile débouté ne peut présenter que des éléments de preuve survenus depuis le rejet ou qui n’étaient alors pas normalement accessibles ou, s’ils l’étaient, qu’il n’était pas raisonnable, dans les circonstances, de s’attendre à ce qu’il les ait présentés au moment du rejet; [18]   Ms. ...

[16]   The applicant submits that the RAD’s decision was unreasonable since it did not take into consideration the testimony of the applicant, her evidence, the objective evidence and the guidelines of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB). ...

However harm which has already occurred at the time of the consideration of the stay does not justify a stay (Douglas v Canada (Attorney General) 2014 FC 1115, 2014 FC 1115 at para 26 and 28). [28]   Mr. ...

However, other factors to consider include whether the worker provides his or her own equipment, whether the worker hires his or her own helpers, the degree of financial risk taken by the worker, the degree of responsibility for investment and management held by the worker, and the worker’s opportunity for profit in the performance of his or her own tasks. [5]   I now address these factors identified in Sagaz, in determining whether GL was engaged in business on his own account, and thus was an independent contractor and not an employee of AAI, in which instance both of these CPP and EIA appeals would be allowed. [6]   The first factor for consideration is the level of AAI control over GL’s activities. ...