Search - consideration

  [3]                With regard to the first position, the applicant was informed on March 16, 2005, that he had been eliminated from consideration for appointment. ...   [4]                As for the second position, on February 3, 2005, another employee of the Agency informed him by email that he had been eliminated from consideration for appointment. ... In addition, though some documents submitted by the complainant indicated his age, the assessment carried out by the Agency does not seem to have taken this factor into consideration during the selection process. ...

. […] [22]            In this regard, the respondent argues that the following corrective measures should have been applied by the Acting Deputy Commissioner: 1) that the information about the incident on October 21, 2011, and the maintenance in segregation no longer be used or taken into consideration in future decision-making processes; and 2) that the security reclassification and involuntary transfer no longer be taken into consideration in future decision-making processes. ... No. 779 at paragraph 33). [24]            Consequently, the decisions rendered on January 31, 2014, by the Acting Deputy Commissioner are set aside, and the file is referred back for redetermination with the following instructions: a)                   Grievance V30R00018783 filed by the applicant concerning his placement in involuntary administrative segregation is allowed for the purpose of applying the following additional corrective measure: the information about the incident on October 21, 2011, and the maintenance of the applicant in involuntary segregation must no longer be used or taken into consideration by correctional authorities in any future decision-making process; and b)                   Grievances V30R0001876, V30R00018784 and V30R00018785 filed by the applicant concerning the reassessment of his security classification and his transfer to a maximum-security institution are allowed for the purpose of applying the following corrective measure: the security reclassification on November 7, 2011, and the applicant’s involuntary transfer to a maximum-security institution on November 24, 2011, must no longer be taken into consideration by correctional authorities in future decision-making processes. [25]            Lastly, the other conclusions the applicant is seeking in his applications for judicial review are denied, without prejudice to the applicant’s right to request the correction of any entry in his file to the relevant correctional authorities and to pursue his action for damages against the Crown, if applicable. ... The file be referred back for redetermination with the following instructions: a)                   Grievance V30R00018783 filed by the applicant concerning his placement in involuntary administrative segregation is allowed for the purpose of applying the following additional corrective measure: the information about the incident on October 21, 2011, and the maintenance of the applicant in involuntary segregation must not be used or taken into consideration by correctional authorities in any future decision-making process; and b)                   Grievances V30R0001876, V30R00018784 and V30R00018785 filed by the applicant concerning the reassessment of his security classification and his transfer to a maximum-security institution are allowed for the purpose of applying the following corrective measure: the security reclassification on November 7, 2011, and the applicant’s involuntary transfer to a maximum-security institution on November 24, 2011, must no longer be taken into consideration by correctional authorities in future decision-making processes. 3.                   ...

The officer’s decision [14]   The officer’s conclusions are summarized below: The applicant has a medical condition that requires regular medical care, and he is concerned that he may not be able to afford such care in his country of birth; The applicant’s situation is excluded by subparagraph 97(1)(b)(iv) of the IRPA, and to escape this exclusion the applicant had to demonstrate that his country of birth engages in practices that are persecutory or discriminatory to the point of persecution with respect to access to medical treatment; The applicant did not provide any evidence showing that the Government of SaintVincent and the Grenadines will provide or withhold hemodialysis in a selective, discriminatory or persecutory manner; The analysis of a PRRA application does not take into account humanitarian and compassionate considerations; On a balance of probabilities, the applicant will not face a danger of torture, a risk to his life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. ... For example, in this case, since the contested decision concerns a PRRA application, it is not open to the PRRA officer to consider the factors that are specific to a humanitarian and compassionate considerations application (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Varga, 2006 FCA 394 at paras 6-9). [24]   In a decision on similar facts (C ovarrubias v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1193 (affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal in 2006 FCA 365)), Justice Richard G. ... The respondent contended, as here, that these are humanitarian and compassionate factors to be considered in an application under section 25 of IRPA and not in a pre-removal risk assessment. [31]   Evidence of the legislative intent of paragraph 97(1)(b)(iv) was provided to the court in Singh through the clause explanatory notes submitted to Pariliament for the consideration of Bill C-11 [An Act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger, 1st Sess., 37th Parl., 2001], subsequently enacted as IRPA. ...

Li reside in Canada, this factor did not outweigh the other considerations in the appeal. ... Applicants bear the burden of establishing sufficient H&C considerations to warrant special relief. ... We find that while having the Appellant continue to reside in Canada would be beneficial to her granddaughters, this does not outweigh the other considerations in this appeal. ...

Overview [1]   This application judicially reviews an Immigration Appeal Division [IAD] decision [Decision] that concluded there were insufficient humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] considerations to overcome the Applicant’s misrepresentation. ... Yang’s appeal, finding there were insufficient H&C considerations to warrant special relief. ... I am also mindful of Lewis v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 FCA 130 [Lewis], which held that Kanthasamy only applies to section 25 decisions, and that IRPA “even there, does not mandate that the affected children’s best interests must necessarily be the priority consideration” (at para 74). ...

In order to place the facts in context, it is necessary to outline the considerations relevant to resulting trusts. ... The transfer in 1978 was for valuable consideration. 3. Only oral evidence supports the resulting trust. ... Exactly why that advice was given is not clear as the payment of consideration at that time would not have avoided operation of the attribution rules if subsection 74(2) of the Act was otherwise applicable. ...

In exercising his discretion, the Minister’s delegate properly took into consideration the non-exhaustive criteria outlines in IC 92-2 as well as the information outlined above. ... In addition, I have no evidence by the applicant that the respondent considered irrelevant information or considered documents which were irrelevant and was taken into consideration by the Minister in arriving at his decision. ... The court may intervene and set aside the discretionary decision under review only if that decision was made in bad faith, if its author clearly ignored some relevant facts or took into consideration irrelevant facts or if the decision is contrary to law. ...

The financial difficulties of the company became so acute that Charter on April 23,1970 agreed to sell back to defendant its shares in the company for $1 and other considerations which included the undertaking by defendant to guarantee jointly and severally with Charter bank loans to the company up to an amount of $200,000 which guarantee was to become binding however only when the indebtedness of the company was reduced from $550,000 at the time of the sale to $200,000. ... I am satisfied that the assignment of the loans to Mr Eidinger for no consideration whatsoever, as it turned out, was merely incidental to his reacquisition of the company through the purchase of its shares and that he had no thought whatsoever at the time of any tax advantages which might eventually accrue to him by the repayment of these loans by the company when it recovered its financial position sufficiently to enable it to do so. ... Although defendant has an acceptable explanation as to why he took nominal sums which he required for living expenses out of the company as repayment of loans rather than as salary—namely that the company’s affairs were so precarious when he again took over that the bank might well call its loans, putting the company into bankruptcy unless it could begin to show a profit, and I am satisfied that the tax considerations did not enter into his mind, nevertheless I am forced to the conclusion that although, at the time of the acquisition, assignment of the loans to him was of little interest to him and not a primary consideration for his reacquisition of the business, the acquisition of these loans by such assignment cannot be considered as a Capital investment by him (even if he had paid some nominal sum for them) but must be considered as part and parcel of the acquisition of the business. ...

Section 128 of the Canada Corporations Act reads: 128. (1) Where any contract involving the transfer of shares or any class of shares in a company (in this section referred to as “the transferor company”) to any other company (in this section referred to as “the transferee company”) has, within four months after the making of the offer in that on behalf of the transferee company, been approved of the holders of not less than nine-tenths of the shares affected, or not less than nine- tenths of each class of shares affected, if more than one class of shares is affected, the transferee company may, at any time within two months after the expiration of the said four months, give notice, in such manner as may be prescribed by the court in the province in which the head office of the transferor company is situate, to any dissenting shareholder that it desires to acquire his shares, and where such notice is given the transferee company is, unless on an application made by the dissenting shareholder within one month from the date on which the notice was given the court thinks fit to order otherwise, entitled and bound to acquire those shares on the terms which, under the contract, the shares of the approving shareholders are to be transferred to the transferee company. (2) Where a notice has been so given and the court has not ordered to the contrary, the transferee company shall, on the expiration of one month from the date on which the notice was given, or, if an application to the court by the dissenting shareholder is then pending, after the application has been disposed of, transmit a copy of the notice to the transferor company and pay or transfer to the transferor company the amount or other consideration representing the price payable by the transferee company for the shares that by virtue of this section it is entitled to acquire, and the transferor company shall thereupon register the transferee company as the holder of those shares. (3) Any sums so received by the transteror company snali e Paid into a separate bank account in a chartered bank in Canada and such sums and any other consideration so received shall be held by the transferor company in trust for the several persons entitled to the shares in respect of which the said sums or other consideration were respectively received. (4) In this section (a) “contract” includes an offer of exchange and any plan or arrangement, whether contained in or evidenced by one or more documents, whereby or pursuant to which the transferee company has become or may become entitled or bound absolutely or conditionally to acquire ail the shares in the transferor company of any one or more classes of shareholders who accept or have accepted the offer or who assent to or have assented to the plan or arrangement; and (b) “dissenting shareholder” includes a shareholder who has not accepted the offer or assented to the plan or arrangement and any shareholder who has failed or refused to transfer his shares to the transferee company in accordance with the contract. 1934, c 33, s 124. ... In the assessment the Minister has determined that the difference between the $24 and the $68.22 was such as to constitute a gift as the consideration was deemed inadequate. ... The question of inadequate consideration appears to have always been considered by the courts as applying only when there was a sham, that is, when a gift, for instance, was disguised to appear as a sale through the device of a token consideration. ...

The appellant takes the position that the amounts received by him from the sales were not taxable by virtue of subsection 83(3) of the Income Tax Act as it read in 1965, being the consideration for an interest in a mining property acquired for the appellant by a prospector pursuant to an arrangement whereby the appellant advanced money to or paid the expenses of the prospector for the purpose of prospecting or exploring for minerals and thereby being exempt income within the meaning of paragraph 139(1)(o) of the said Act. ... It appears clear from a careful reading of section 83 as a whole that its purpose is to encourage development of mineral resources by, inter alia, prospectors, or persons who have financed prospectors, by ensuring they are not taxed upon amounts received in consideration for mining properties which they have prospected, explored or developed. ... No exhaustive list has been compiled and perhaps no exhaustive list can be compiled of the considerations which are relevant in determining that question, nor can strict rules be laid down as to the relative weight which the various considerations should carry in particular cases. ...