Search - consideration

Factors to consider Éléments à considérer (4) The Division must consider, in deciding if the claim should be declared abandoned, the explanation given by the claimant and any other relevant factors, including the fact that the claimant is ready to start or continue the proceedings. (4) Pour décider si elle prononce le désistement de la demande d’asile, la Section prend en considération l’explication donnée par le demandeur d’asile et tout autre élément pertinent, notamment le fait qu’il est prêt à commencer ou à poursuivre les procédures. ... [35]   The Applicant argues that the Second Decision is unreasonable because the Second Member failed to take into consideration the factors which are normally relevant to an abandonment decision and because the Applicant had given a clear intention to proceed with her claim. [36]   In Ahamad v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2000] 3 FC 109 (QL), Justice Lemieux discussed the applicable test to review a Member’s decision to declare a refugee claim abandoned. ... Though other decision-makers might have approached the matter differently, the Second Member was entitled to decide as he did. [45]   In Zhang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 882, Justice Leblanc wrote the following regarding the application of section 168 of the IRPA: [36]   This Court, in interpreting s 168(1) of the Act, has consistently held that the key consideration with respect to abandonment proceedings is whether the claimant’s conduct amounts to an expression of his or her intention to diligently prosecute his or her claim (Csikos v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2013 FC 632 (CanLII), at para 25). [46]   In determining whether a claim has been abandoned, the Division must give the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be declared abandoned. ...

., was acquiring a 5% interest in MEL as partial consideration for the sale of its assets to MEL. (2) It was anticipated that the partnership would need to acquire significant cash in order to purchase these businesses ... R. [9], the FCA interpreted the previous version of subsection 256(2.1) of the Act and held that:   15 The phrase “to reduce the amount of taxes that would otherwise be payable under this Act” refers to the tax which would have been payable if the companies under consideration had not had a separate existence; [… ... Gaucher’s testimony was clear that while tax reduction was a consideration, access to the SBD for the Appellants was not one of the main reasons for the separate existence of the newly created corporations. [31]   Fatal to the Respondent’s argument concerning PLH was the following. ...

In other words, it allows the Court to summarily dispense “with cases which ought not proceed to trial because there is no genuine issue to be tried in respect of the claim” (Timm v Canada, 2015 FC 1391 at para 48 [Timm]). [28]   Thus, upon a motion for summary judgment, the Court’s role is to determine whether the success of the position put forward by the party against whom the motion is brought “is so doubtful that [the position] does not deserve consideration by the trier of fact at a future trial” (Houchaine at para 27; Granville Shipping Co v Pegasus Lines Ltd SA, [1996] FCJ No 481 (Fed TD)). ... As stated above, upon a motion for summary judgment, the Court’s role is to determine whether the position put forward by the party against which the motion is brought “is so doubtful that [the position] does not deserve consideration by the trier of fact at a future trial” (Houchaine at para 27). [69]   In this case, the party against which the motion is brought has chosen not to file any evidence but rather to make allegations only, which is insufficient (Lameman; Trevor Nicholas Construction Co Limited v Canada, 2011 FC 70 at para 44; Rude Native at paras 15–18). This Court is satisfied that the plaintiffs’ position does not merit consideration in a future trial and agrees with the defendants’ position that the plaintiffs’ statement of claim does not raise any genuine issue to be tried. ...

Burlacu points to the Commissioner’s consideration of the Citizenship Act and the IRPA to argue that a correctness standard is to be applied to any conclusions reached in relation to the legislative authority or recourse mechanisms provided for in those regimes. ... In fulfilling this duty the Commissioner considers and interprets the information relevant to the disclosure and, in doing so, may be required to engage in consideration of different statutory, regulatory or policy regimes. ... It is important to make clear that my finding in this regard does not insulate the Commissioner’s consideration and analysis of the requirements and obligations of the Citizenship Act and the IRPA from review. ...

Where the Appeal Division affirms the PBC’s decision, it is permissible, in the context of judicial review of the Appeal Division’s decision, to look into the lawfulness and reasonableness of the PBC’s underlying decision: Condo v Canada (AG), 2005 FCA 391 at paras 51-57; Chartrand v Canada (AG), 2018 FC 1183 at paras 38-40; Cartier, supra at paras 8-10. [18]   The reasonableness standard requires consideration of whether the decisions were justified, transparent and intelligible and whether they fell within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law: Dunsmuir v New Brunswick,  2008 SCC 9 [Dunsmuir] at para 47. [19]   Whether the PBC and the Appeal Division respected procedural fairness, however, is reviewable on what “most closely aligns to the correctness standard, but in reality what a reviewing court must do is to determine whether the process was fair, having regard to all of the circumstances”: Oladihinde v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1246 [Oladihinde] at para 5, citing Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (AG), 2018 FCA 69 at para 54. ... [EN BLANC/BLANK] … … (3) On completion of the review of the case of an offender referred to in subsection (1), the Board may order that the offender not be released from imprisonment before the expiration of the offender’s sentence according to law, except as provided by subsection (5), where the Board is satisfied (3) Au terme de l’examen, la Commission peut, par ordonnance, interdire la mise en liberté du délinquant avant l’expiration légale de sa peine autrement qu’en conformité avec le paragraphe (5) si elle est convaincue: (a) in the case of an offender serving a sentence that includes a sentence for an offence set out in Schedule I, or for an offence set out in Schedule I that is punishable under section 130 of the National Defence Act, that the offender is likely, if released, to commit an offence causing the death of or serious harm to another person or a sexual offence involving a child before the expiration of the offender’s sentence according to law, a) dans le cas où la peine d’emprisonnement comprend une peine infligée pour une infraction visée à l’annexe I, ou qui y est mentionnée et qui est punissable en vertu de l’article 130 de la Loi sur la défense nationale, que le délinquant commettra, s’il est mis en liberté avant l’expiration légale de sa peine, soit une infraction causant la mort ou un dommage grave à une autre personne, soit une infraction d’ordre sexuel à l’égard d’un enfant; … … 131 (1.1) Despite subsection (1), if the order made under subsection 130(3) relates to an offender who is serving a sentence imposed for an offence set out in Schedule I whose commission caused the death of or serious harm to another person, the Board shall review the order within two years after the date the order was made, and thereafter within two years after the date of each preceding review while the offender remains subject to the order. 131 (1.1) Malgré le paragraphe (1), lorsque l’ordonnance visée au paragraphe 130(3) est prise à l’égard d’un délinquant qui purge une peine infligée pour une infraction mentionnée à l’annexe I ayant causé la mort ou un dommage grave à une autre personne, la Commission réexamine, dans les deux ans suivant la prise de l’ordonnance et tous les deux ans par la suite, le cas du délinquant à l’égard duquel l’ordonnance est toujours en vigueur. … … 132 (1) For the purposes of the review and determination of the case of an offender pursuant to section 129, 130 or 131, the Service, the Commissioner or the Board, as the case may be, shall take into consideration any factor that is relevant in determining the likelihood of the commission of an offence causing the death of or serious harm to another person before the expiration of the offender’s sentence according to law, including 132 (1) Le Service et le commissaire, dans le cadre des examens et renvois prévus à l’article 129, ainsi que la Commission, pour décider de l’ordonnance à rendre en vertu de l’article 130 ou 131, prennent en compte tous les facteurs utiles pour évaluer le risque que le délinquant commette, avant l’expiration légale de sa peine, une infraction de nature à causer la mort ou un dommage grave à une autre personne, notamment: (a) a pattern of persistent violent behaviour established on the basis of any evidence, in particular, a) un comportement violent persistant, attesté par divers éléments, en particulier: (i) the number of offences committed by the offender causing physical or psychological harm, (i) le nombre d’infractions antérieures ayant causé un dommage corporel ou moral, (ii) the seriousness of the offence for which the sentence is being served, (ii) la gravité de l’infraction pour laquelle le délinquant purge une peine d’emprisonnement, (iii) reliable information demonstrating that the offender has had difficulties controlling violent or sexual impulses to the point of endangering the safety of any other person, (iii) l’existence de renseignements sûrs établissant que le délinquant a eu des difficultés à maîtriser ses impulsions violentes ou sexuelles au point de mettre en danger la sécurité d’autrui, (iv) the use of a weapon in the commission of any offence by the offender, (iv) l’utilisation d’armes lors de la perpétration des infractions, (v) explicit threats of violence made by the offender, (v) les menaces explicites de recours à la violence, (vi) behaviour of a brutal nature associated with the commission of any offence by the offender, and (vi) le degré de brutalité dans la perpétration des infractions, (vii) a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the offender as to the consequences to other persons of the offender’s behaviour; (vii) un degré élevé d’indifférence quant aux conséquences de ses actes sur autrui; (b) medical, psychiatric or psychological evidence of such likelihood owing to a physical or mental illness or disorder of the offender; b) les rapports de médecins, de psychiatres ou de psychologues indiquant que, par suite d’une maladie physique ou mentale ou de troubles mentaux, il présente un tel risque; (c) reliable information compelling the conclusion that the offender is planning to commit an offence causing the death of or serious harm to another person before the expiration of the offender’s sentence according to law; and c) l’existence de renseignements sûrs obligeant à conclure qu’il projette de commettre, avant l’expiration légale de sa peine, une infraction de nature à causer la mort ou un dommage grave à une autre personne; (d) the availability of supervision programs that would offer adequate protection to the public from the risk the offender might otherwise present until the expiration of the offender’s sentence according to law. d) l’existence de programmes de surveillance de nature à protéger suffisamment le public contre le risque que présenterait le délinquant jusqu’à l’expiration légale de sa peine. … … 147 (4) The Appeal Division, on the completion of a review of a decision appealed from, may 147 (4) Au terme de la révision, la Section d’appel peut rendre l’une des décisions suivantes: (a) affirm the decision; a) confirmer la décision visée par l’appel; VI.   ... So long as the chain of reasoning of the decision maker can be understood, and it shows proper engagement with or consideration of the evidence, the decision will be reasonable: Oladihinde, supra at para 16. [33]   As detailed above, the alleged incident with the firearm was one of many factors the PBC considered before arriving at a final decision. ...

Finally, the guidance document provides the following summary: There may be other types of unpaid short-term work where the work is really incidental to the main reason that a person is visiting Canada and is not a competitive activity, even though non-monetary valuable consideration is received. ... Rather, I agree with the Applicants that because it is not the RAD’s role to carry out a de novo consideration of the claim, the RAD is tethered to the RPD’s decision (see, for instance, Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v Gebrewold, 2018 FC 374 at para 25). [48]   The Applicant submits that, in a similar way, the IAD is “tethered” to the ID’s decision. ... The matter is remitted for consideration by a different panel. [55]   The Applicant proposed a question for certification relating to the second issue, whether an appeal to the IAD is a true de novo hearing. ...

Analysis [8]   The parties have agreed that the standard of review is reasonableness as do I (Lemus v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FCA 114 at para 18). [9]   In an H&C application under section 25(1), the Minister may exempt a foreign national from any obligations under the Act, “if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to the foreign national, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected.” [10]   The Minister’s decision to grant this relief is discretionary.   The analysis is “a global one” where “relevant considerations are to be weighed cumulatively as part of the determination of whether relief is justified in the circumstances” (Kanthasamy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 at para 28). ... The Officer weighed the letters of support against other considerations and came to a reasonable conclusion that he had little establishment in Canada.   ...

The conclusion that there is adequate state protection in Jamaica was reasonably open to the PRRA officer based on consideration of the Jamaica Constabulary letter and other country condition documents. ... This can be seen from the PRRA officer’s consideration of:- the operational difficulties faced by the Jamaica Constabulary as expressed in their letter;- the concern that “effective protection” can be difficult where assailants are unknown, even for the most effective and well-resourced police forces;- the Jamaica Constabulary’s active, though unsuccessful, investigations in response to Mr.  ... On review of the decision, I am satisfied that the PRRA officer’s consideration of the Jamaica Constabulary letter was reasonable. (2)   Other Evidence [47]   Mr. ...

Seventeen days does not qualify as very quickly. [6]   Nevertheless, a number of considerations support an exercise of discretion in favour of hearing the motions despite this delay. ... This consideration has led this Court to say that “[t]hose embarking upon an interlocutory foray to this Court…will not often find a welcome mat when they arrive”: Association of Universities at para. 11; see also Gravel v. ... As well, there is nothing that suggests the moving parties have sought to examine the individuals they say have first-hand evidence or have moved for a Rule 41 summons (as discussed in Tsleil-Waututh No. 1 at para. 103). [52]   On the issue of necessity, three considerations should be kept front of mind. [53]   First, necessity must be “given a flexible definition, capable of encompassing diverse situations” in which “the relevant direct evidence is not, for a variety of reasons, available”: R. v. ...

A prima facie case is one that on a balance of probabilities (i.e. more likely than not) establishes, upon consideration of all the evidence, a factual conclusion at variance with one or more pleaded ministerial assumptions of fact. [24]   AS Inc.’s evidence that the quantum of received AmEx incentives was as it has asserted and not as the Minister has assumed is, as indicated above, not derived from either of the “normal” methods, being testimonial and/or documentary evidence from the suppliers, and/or evidence from contemporaneously kept books and records, as AS Inc. kept no such books and records. ... Simply renouncing such a statement on the basis the CRA did not give the Appellants an opportunity for full consideration of it does not make the filed statement go away; all the more so, absent any evidence that should have been available from books and records contemporaneously maintained by AS Inc. corroborating that the statement was a mistake. ... Q as to report-ability of shareholder benefits- is to me significantly indicative that the non-reporting was not a bona fide position taken with due care and consideration by either of Mr.Q and AS Inc. ...