Search - consideration

While the September 10, 2003 letter might lead one to the conclusion that the respondent had fettered his discretion by confining his consideration of the request to whether there were extraordinary circumstances, as described, that was neither the beginning nor the end of the matter. ... I see nothing in the subsequent letter from applicant's counsel dated May 24, 2005 that would have required further consideration by the Minister.  ...

(Orally)                              9       1              Here, the scope of judicial review is limited to       2         reviewing whether the ministerial delegate exercised his       3         discretion with regard to relevant considerations and       4         without regard to extraneous factors. ... (Orally)                           11       1         have triggered a determination that granted her request       2         for interest waiver: processing delays which resulted in       3         her not being informed within a reasonable time that an       4         amount is owing; processing errors which resulted in her       5         being    unaware    of    certain    obligations,    and    tax       6         consequences that were not intended by her, considering       7         that she had taken reasonable steps to comply with the       8         law.       9               I have already determined that the correspondence      10         did not contain information such that CCRA would have      11         concluded that the income tax had been incorrectly filed.      12         Given the high level of deference owed to the Minister, I      13         cannot conclude that the respondent erred with respect to      14         the consideration of the applicant's April, 1996 letter.      15              The applicant also makes an argument with respect to      16         the difficulty she was having professionally. ...

Sixsmith, for his consideration. By letter dated April 4, 2001, Mr. Sixsmith informed the applicant that all of her requests were denied. ... 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. ...

" [37]            There is no reference in this case to consideration of the balancing of the public interest in disclosure and privacy interests. ... The inclusion of "26" as a marginal notation for certain redacted portions of documents released does not include any further explanation. [38]            There is no evidence in the record of consideration of subparagraph 8(2)(m)(i) of the Act, or the balancing of privacy interests and the public interest in disclosure in the exercise of discretion under section 26. ...

The Plaintiffs noted that settlement considerations intervening between the first and second mediations affected the circumstances of the latter two pre-trial attendances. ... Paragraph [40] of the Court's decision indicates that there was not an issue of the amount of damages before the trial Judge and therefore I do not agree that the absence in the judgment of a direction to pay $10,000.00, or any other amount, creates a more favourable situation for plaintiffs whose settlement offer was the genesis of such a consideration. ...

Under such a test, inadvertence, error, hastiness, lack of knowledge of the facts, discovery of new facts, and timeliness of the motion to amend become factors to be taken into consideration in deciding whether or not the circumstances show that there is a triable issue which ought to be tried in the interests of justice. ... Therefore, the matter will not proceed to trial on wrong facts that require consideration in the course of determining the issue to be decided at trial. [42]            I also find that the proposed amendment would not facilitate the determination of the real question in controversy. ...

The Respondent noted that these same arguments apply to settlement considerations under Rule 420 as said tax debt was located solely in the United States and the only issue in this Court was whether a collection process could occur in Canada. ... Given the opportunity for international collection, the retroactivity of the Convention, and the passage of time from the initial consideration (1996) of the request for collection assistance, I think it unlikely that the Respondent could have realistically influenced the IRS to settle or extinguish the US tax debt which, in turn, would have made this judicial review unnecessary. ...

Finally, the Plaintiff also suggests that policy considerations support its interpretation of the Paragraph. ... Under the heading "Timber Limits and Cutting Rights" at page 35 the Notice reads in part:                  "That where a taxpayer acquires after May 6, 1974, a property that is a timber limit or right or licence to cut timber from a timber limit or area in Canada, provided that all or any part of the cost may reasonably be regarded as consideration for an expectation of being able to or a right to renew, acquire or apply for a timber limit or a right or licence to cut timber from a timber limit or area in Canada... ...

The Assistant Director took into consideration the difference between the circular and the guidelines, but in applying them both to all the particular circumstances of Mr. ...   [42]            In light of the facts and after due consideration of the evidence submitted by the parties, the Court concludes that it was reasonable for the Agency to deny the voluntary disclosure request made by Mr.  ...

In this way, and although the review carried by the SJPA of factors 3, 4 and 6 to 8 of paragraph 60 of Air Canada might to varying degrees favour the position held by SJPA, after consideration, the Court has determined that an examination of the character of the matter at issue, and the nature of the decision-maker and his responsibility brings the matter into the purview of public law ... The SJPA submits that the licencing of a seasonal retail boat service under consideration in this application is materially indistinguishable from the activities considered in DRL Vacations and in 54039 Newfoundland and Labrador Ltd v St John’s Port Authority, 2011 FC 740 (54039 Newfoundland) ...