Search - consideration

In my view, consideration of whether an applicant has a reasonable prospect of a durable solution in a country other than Canada requires an assessment of the person’s personal circumstances and the conditions in the person’s country of residence [citation omitted]. ...

Ineligibility Irrecevabilité 101 (1) A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division if 101 (1) La demande est irrecevable dans les cas suivants : (e) the claimant came directly or indirectly to Canada from a country designated by the regulations, other than a country of their nationality or their former habitual residence; or e) arrivée, directement ou indirectement, d’un pays désigné par règlement autre que celui dont il a la nationalité ou dans lequel il avait sa résidence habituelle; Regulations Règlements 102 (1) The regulations may govern matters relating to the application of sections 100 and 101, may, for the purposes of this Act, define the terms used in those sections and, for the purpose of sharing responsibility with governments of foreign states for the consideration of refugee claims, may include provisions 102 (1) Les règlements régissent l’application des articles 100 et 101, définissent, pour l’application de la présente loi, les termes qui y sont employés et, en vue du partage avec d’autres pays de la responsabilité de l’examen des demandes d’asile, prévoient notamment: (a) designating countries that comply with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture; a) la désignation des pays qui se conforment à l’article 33 de la Convention sur les réfugiés et à l’article 3 de la Convention contre la torture; The following dispositions from the IRPR are also relevant: Definitions Définitions 159.1 The following definitions apply in this section and sections 159.2 to 159.7. 159.1 Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent au présent article et aux articles 159.2 à 159.7. family member, in respect of a claimant, means their spouse or common-law partner, their legal guardian, and any of the following persons, namely, their child, father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandmother, grandchild, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. membre de la famille  À l’égard du demandeur, son époux ou conjoint de fait, son tuteur légal, ou l’une ou l’autre des personnes suivantes: son enfant, son père, sa mère, son frère, sa sœur, son grand-père, sa grand-mère, son petit-fils, sa petite-fille, son oncle, sa tante, son neveu et sa nièce. ...

Tabari highlights that (1) the Officer cited no evidence to support the conclusion that she is not well-established; (2) the Officer is unreasonable in assuming that cost is a determinative factor in selecting a program of study; (3) there is no evidence that the Officer considered her financial status; (4) the evidence suggests that she had provided proof of funds and assets; (5) she has no ties in Canada and strong ties in Iran; (6) the Officer did not outline what the economic motives to remain in Canada are; (7) the Officer’s consideration of the travel history amounts to a refusal for lack of travel history; and (8) the Officer generally ignored the evidence. ...

I keep in mind that the onus is on the Respondent to prove this but at the end of the day it is the evidence adduced at the hearing by both parties that I would take into consideration. [10]   On the basis of the foregoing I conclude that there were at least two misrepresentations in respect of the return for the 2013 taxation year. [11]   Subparagraph 4.01(a)(i) was not raised by either party but I feel it necessary to address it. ...

Lateness and Overhead Calculation Factors Activity: [19]   The second activity that the Appellant put forward for SR&ED consideration was the Appellant’s 2013 work seeking to incorporate the “best lateness and overhead calculation” to enhance CSO’s ability to calculate optimal timelines for concurrently run projects. ...

She says that when people such as themselves come to Canada once they are older, they cannot work the minimum of ten years and that the law should take this into consideration as this is unjust. ...

The overriding consideration is that the interests of justice be served. ...

Failure to consider the Guideline [26]   In this regard, the applicant contends that it is not enough to mention in the reasons for the decision that the Guideline was taken into consideration. ...

Factors like nightmares, fear of leaving the house, focus and memory issues (which were in the medical report and which the Applicant’s counsel persuasively described at the hearing) impact both her mental health and the best interests of her children, increasing the importance of the mental health considerations to the outcome. [26]   It must be remembered that the RPD did accept: that Ms. ...

The Applicant argues that the RAD committed reviewable errors on the merits as follows: the RAD erred in its consideration of the evidence regarding Hezbollah’s recruitment tactics, and thus made unreasonable inferences regarding the foundation of the Applicant’s fear; the RAD erred by confirming and adopting the RPD’s imposition of the arbitrary requirement that the uncle be high-ranking within Hezbollah to establish the Applicant’s well-founded fear; the RAD erred by failing to give the Applicant the benefit of the presumption of truthfulness regarding his uncle’s rank in Hezbollah, and by drawing an invalid inverse inference regarding his credibility due to a lack of corroborative evidence on the same point; and the RAD erred in fact and law in its determination that Beirut would be a viable IFA for the Applicant. ...