Search - consideration

I would simply observe again in passing that counsel to the Society abandoned in oral argument the issue that it had raised in its written submissions with respect to the Minister’s failure to establish a Board of Review. [81]            It follows from the foregoing that the 30 day limit set forth in subsection 18.1(2) applies and the Society is left in the position of depending on the exercise of this Court’s discretion to grant an extension of that limit. [82]            There are four considerations that guide the Court in determining whether to exercise that discretion. These are whether: (i) the moving party exhibited a continuing intention to pursue the application; (ii) there is merit to the application; (iii) the other parties have suffered prejudice as a result of the delay, and (iv) there is a reasonable explanation for the delay (Canada v Hennelly, [1999] FCJ No 846, at para 3 (FCA); Muckenheim v Canada (Employment Insurance Commission), 2008 FCA 249, at para 8). [83]            In assessing the foregoing considerations, the Court will keep in mind that the 30 day time limit set forth in subsection 18.1(2) “ is not whimsical, ” but rather “exists in the public interest, in order to bring finality to administrative decisions so as to ensure their effective implementation without delay and to provide security to those who comply with the decision or to enforce compliance with it, often at considerable expense” (Budisukma Puncak Sendirian Berhad v Canada, 2005 FCA 267, at para 60). [84]            On balance, the four considerations listed above, taken together, weigh in favour of declining to exercise discretion to grant an extension to the 30 day limitation period. ... Factors for consideration (3) Before issuing a permit under subsection (1) or renewing it, the Minister shall comply with Schedule 6 and shall take into account any factors that the Minister considers necessary. ...

" In light of the jurisprudence referred to in the cases of Valentine, Vautour, Kaur, and section 122 of the Employment Insurance Act, which states that "if a question specified in section 90 arises in the consideration of a claim for benefits, it shall be determined by an authorized officer of the Department of National Revenue, as provided by that section" (emphasis added), I do not think that the Board of Referees and correlatively the Umpire had the jurisdiction to determine whether Ms. ... Further, section 122 of the Act clearly states that if a question described in section 90 "arises in the consideration of a claim for benefits" (obviously consideration by the Commission which normally determines claims for benefits) then such question "shall be determined" by the Department of National Revenue, which I take it means the Commission must make a request to the Department for a determination as provided for in sub-section 90(1). [3]      Here a question arose as to the hours the claimant had had in insurable employment as soon as the Commission calculated that she had 630 hours in 1996. ... If a question specified in section 90 arises in the consideration of a claim for benefits, it shall be determined by an authorized officer of the Department of National Revenue, as provided by that section. 122. ...

The fair market value of the goodwill and of the share consideration was $900,000;                                                            ii.       ... Mady received as part of his consideration, and the Professional Services Agreement, which included the clawback mechanism. ... There is nothing in the SPA that suggests that the Appellant had granted to his wife and two daughters the right to acquire the 85 Class B, C and D common shares for nominal consideration. ...

It is also relevant to ask whether it is possible to take other considerations into account than the object of the statutory prohibition to determine the type of nullity involved. [23]   There are two opposing schools of thought here. ... (c) The use of elements external to the object of the prohibition to qualify the nullity [107]   It is useful to determine whether the general interest protected can be evaluated based on other considerations than the object of the prohibition, even though the doctrine of illegality as such does not apply in Quebec. [108]   One of the primary differences between the two lines of doctrine on the effects of an employment contract’s invalidity is in the interpretation of what constitutes general interest. ... Chrétien, 1998 CanLII 12628 (QCCA). [81]   The following excerpt of the decision is revealing: [translation] “Given the development of the legislative or regulatory framework and the growing number of imperative and prohibitive provisions, it was necessary that the jurisprudence and doctrine give greater consideration to the objective and scope of a regime of nullity. ...

Issue (ii): Consideration of danger [47]   The Member clearly acknowledged Mr. ... Hamdan to be a danger to the public in the context of its admissibility decision the previous year, did not require the ID to reach a similar conclusion in the detention context, as these adjudicate different issues under different sections of IRPA, with different Charter considerations at play.   ... Such an assessment necessarily involves “political considerations not inappropriate for a minister” (Williams, at paragraph 29), but which are certainly not relevant for the ID in a detention review. [57]   Finally, the Minister argues that the Member had insufficient information concerning Mr.  ...

Obviously, the public interest is a very important consideration in determining whether an interlocutory impounding order should be set aside. ... In his view the contention put forward by the appellants was not so immediately obvious as to exclude from consideration that put forward by the respondents. ... These considerations alone are sufficient to meet the public interest criterion. ...

Obviously, the public interest is a very important consideration in determining whether an interlocutory impounding order should be set aside. ... In his view the contention put forward by the appellants was not so immediately obvious as to exclude from consideration that put forward by the respondents. ... These considerations alone are sufficient to meet the public interest criterion. ...

He said he gave her a dollar consideration, he just thought he had to leave something so he left a dollar consideration on the table. ... He was asked if consideration was given to proceeding with the estate distribution without the clearance certificate. ... Barabash or that there was any consideration of them selling the shares to Videotron, that it was the estate. ...

Quatre choses sont nécessaires pour la validité d'un contrat: des parties ayant la capacité légale de contracter; leur consentement donné légalement; quelque chose qui soit l’objet du contrat; une cause ou considération licite. ... Tancelin [42] nous enseigne, qu'aujourd'hui en droit civil québécois, on doit distinguer la nullité absolue ou la nullité relative uniquement en prenant en considération leurs conditions d'exercice et non leurs effets respectifs. ... A cet effet, Tancelin [51] nous propose trois critères à considérer: le principe de la réparation intégrale, la prise en considération de la gravité de la faute du débiteur et le caractère indemmnitaire et non exemplaire des dommages-intérêts. ...

Their course of action has more often than not been forced upon them by the stress of circumstances, and by the consideration that to lay down general principles of law is the proper and natural function of legislators. ... Even those considerations do not inevitably override that nucleus of our Constitution which is the rule of law. ... Vague Uncertainty and Strict Construction Unwilling and unable as this Court is to accord any constitutional validity to section 34 of the Act under consideration, yet there is no power in the Court to hold that provision or any other enactment or statute void for uncertainty only, in the absence of a Charter issue. ...