Search - consideration

In fact, the RPD cast doubt upon her motivation for joining the church. [10]   After consideration of all the evidence, including Ms. ... As a result, no question is certified for consideration by the Federal Court of Appeal. ... No question is certified for consideration by the Federal Court of Appeal. ...

Further, the Minister says that the decision and reasons were clear, and adequately accounted for the public interests at stake. [9]   In my view, Bangladesh’s application for judicial review should be allowed because the Minister failed to give serious consideration to the public interest that would be served if the information sought were disclosed. [10]   There are four issues: Is the application for judicial review premature? ... In the departmental advice the Minister received and apparently relied on, the sole consideration was the fact that Mr Chowdhury might be harmed by the disclosure and that the consequences could be severe. ... That factor must be weighed against the public interest in disclosure. [29]   It appears, therefore, that the Minister failed to balance the applicable considerations. ...

As Evans JA went on to explain, in exercising this discretion, a reviewing court “should attempt to strike a balance between, on the one hand, maintaining the integrity of and preventing the abuse of judicial and administrative processes, and, on the other, the public interest in ensuring the lawful conduct of government and the protection of fundamental human rights” (at para 10). [7]   Evans JA suggested several factors to consider in the exercise of this discretion (at para 10): the seriousness of the applicant’s misconduct and the extent to which it undermines the proceeding in question; the need to deter others from similar conduct; the nature of the alleged administrative unlawfulness and the apparent strength of the case; and the importance of the individual rights affected and the likely impact upon the applicant if the administrative action impugned is allowed to stand. [8]   As Evans JA noted, this is not an exhaustive list, nor are all the considerations necessarily going to be relevant in every case. [9]   In Canada (National Revenue) v Cameco Corporation, 2019 FCA 67, the Federal Court of Appeal recently reiterated that “clean hands” is “an equitable doctrine, under which a party may be disentitled to relief to which it was otherwise entitled as a consequence of past conduct or bad faith. ... Without in any way pronouncing on the merits of the applicant’s position at this time, I am satisfied on a prima facie basis that the “importance of the individual rights affected and the likely impact upon the applicant if the administrative action impugned is allowed to stand” are sufficient to overcome the applicant’s past misconduct under the “clean hands” doctrine. [14]   Many of these considerations will also figure in an assessment of where the balance of convenience lies under the three-part test for a stay as set out in RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 86 NR 302 (FCA), and their progeny.   ... A key consideration is whether the moving party could reasonably have brought the motion sooner. [17]   In the present case, however, the applicant is not responsible for the last-minute character of his stay motion.   ...

The Commission, on notice to the party, may refuse to place those parts of the submission in excess of ten pages before the Commissioners for consideration. Where the Commission places submissions longer than ten pages before the Commissioners for consideration, it shall provide notice to the other parties and give them the opportunity to file submissions of equal length and then place those submissions before the Commission. [15]   Paragraph 9.6, which concerns accommodations to promote barrier-free access, has no application here.   ... If, as seems likely, the applicant concludes that supporting documents that would bring his submission over ten pages in length are necessary to state his response to the Investigation Report fully and fairly, he should include them for the Commission’s consideration along with a request to this effect and an explanation of why the documents are material.   ...

The guideline titled “Humanitarian and compassionate consideration” requires immigration officers to conduct a global assessment of H&C factors. [22]   Ms. ... The same argument was made before Justice Yvan Roy in De Sousa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 818 [De Sousa], and was rejected for the following reasons (at para 27): The applicants submit that the decision maker set a high bar for his consideration of the establishment by requiring that it be “exceptional” (Memorandum of fact and law, para 31). ... But the point is that such establishment is not so out of the ordinary that it would carry very significant weight. [25]   Similar considerations apply here. ...

In deciding when it is reasonably practicable for a removal order to be executed, an enforcement officer may consider various factors, including illness, other impediments to travelling and pending applications. [28]   Chief Justice Paul Crampton recently described the scope of an enforcement officer’s discretion as follows (Forde v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 1029 at para 36: [36] Moreover, it is now settled law that an enforcement officer’s discretion to defer removal is “very limited,” and is restricted to deferring for a short period of time in situations “where failure to defer will expose the applicant to the risk of death, extreme sanction or inhumane treatment” … In cases where a determination has not yet been made on a previously submitted H&C application, CBSA enforcement officers do not have the discretion to defer removal in the absence of “special considerations” or a “threat to personal safety” … Even in such “special situations,” as discussed below, there are important temporal limits on a removal officer’s discretion to defer removal. … [Emphasis removed.] [29]   The law is clear that removal is the rule while deferral is the exception. ... The Officer found the Applicant’s application untimely (as was conceded by his counsel at the hearing) and there was no indication that it would be processed anytime soon. [44]   It is clear that an outstanding H&C application does not constitute grounds for deferral in the absence of special considerations. ... Conclusion [46]   I have not been persuaded that the Officer made any reviewable error in his review and consideration of the evidence. ...

There was no viable consideration for the acquisition of the debt as there was no expectation of gaining or producing income within the real estate company. ... However, pursuant to subparagraph 40(2)(g)(ii), a taxpayer is not permitted to deduct a capital loss in respect of the disposition of a debt or other right to receive an amount, unless the debt was acquired for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property or was acquired as consideration for the disposition of capital property in an arm’s length transaction. ... Subparagraph 40(2)(g)(ii) reads as follows: 40(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) (g) a taxpayer’s loss, if any, from the disposition of a property, to the extent that it is (ii) a loss from the disposition of a debt or other right to receive an amount, unless the debt or right, as the case may be, was acquired by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property (other than exempt income) or as consideration for the disposition of capital property to a person with whom the taxpayer was dealing at arm’s length, is nil. ...

The scope of the subsection is not obscure for one does not speak of benefitting a person in the sense of the subsection by making a business contract with him for adequate consideration. Two important qualifications are noted here: the first is that the taxpayer seek “to avoid receipt" of funds, presumably funds that would otherwise be payable to him; and the second is that the concept of payment of a “benefit" is contrasted to payments for adequate consideration. ... As noted above, in the Miller case it was said that the concept of "benefit" in this subsection did not include advantages conferred under a contract for adequate consideration. ...

On December 23, 1963, the plaintiff acquired 90% of the shares in BCP Ltd for $1 and other considerations, the latter being the payment of the company’s liabilities up to an amount of $160,000. ... From 1963 to 1976, apart from the $160,000 of the company’s debt he had agreed to pay as a consideration for the acquisition of the shares (which amount was later converted into preferred shares), the plaintiff had guaranteed advances made to BCP Ltd and had made himself interestbearing loans to the company with a view to providing it with the money required to implement its innovation programme and improve its working capital. ... Nothing indicates that the character of the operation had changed when the outlays under consideration were made. ...

Gajic’s claim a very thorough consideration. It assumed, contrary to the minutes of the Cabinet meeting, that the Lieutenant Governor in Council had denied a remission, but since denial was purely a legislative decision-making function it was not subject to any rules of procedural fairness. ... Thus, although the written argument touches on the jurisdiction point, I limit my consideration to a want of a reasonable cause of action argument which, in effect, is a res judicata submission by reason of the very full treatment of the Provincial Crown’s position by the B.C. ... Consideration There are two motions to consider, first that of the Federal Crown, to the effect that there is no reasonable cause of action, or alternatively that the Queen in Right of Canada ought not to be a party to the proceedings as the Queen in Right of Canada is in no way related to the relief sought. ...