Search - consideration
Results 8161 - 8170 of 29010 for consideration
FCA
Walsh v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 229
In light of the nature of the Minister’s discretion under subsection 220(3.1) (Telfer, at para. 40) and the delegate’s consideration of multiple factors, the Federal Court did not err in finding the decision reasonable. [9] We will therefore dismiss the appeal with costs set at an amount of $2,500.00 (all inclusive). ...
FCA
Gratl v. Canada, 2019 FCA 3
Based on its consideration of all of the evidence, the Tax Court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the Minister sent the notices of reassessment to Ms. ...
FCTD
Jiang v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 629
Further, she argues that the CRA did not take CIBC’s error into consideration. [11] In response, the Respondent argues that there is no obligation on the CRA to demonstrate that a taxpayer has received mail; it only needs to demonstrate that such mail was sent. ...
FCTD
Rodriguez Ramirez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-2610-19
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-2610-19 Date: 20190815 Docket: IMM-2610-19 Toronto, Ontario, August 15, 2019 PRESENT: Madam Justice McDonald BETWEEN: OSCAR DANIEL RODRIGUEZ RAMIREZ DANIEL FELIPE RODRIGUEZ SUAREZ CLAUDIA LILIANA SUAREZ CHANCI Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent ORDER UPON MOTION on behalf of the Applicants for an order staying their removal to Colombia, scheduled for August 16, 2019, pending the determination of their request for an extension of time to file an application for leave and for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated February 1, 2019 finding that their claims had been abandoned; AND UPON considering the Affidavits and written submissions filed on behalf of the parties; AND UPON hearing oral submissions on behalf of the parties on August 15, 2019, at a special sitting of the Court; AND UPON noting that the granting of an extension of time for filing the underlying application for leave for judicial review is a condition precedent to the consideration of the Applicants’ Motion for a Stay of their Removal; AND UPON noting that the applicable test for the granting of an extension of time is set out in Canada (Attorney General) v. ...
FCTD
Godbout v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 1144
Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 1179. [9] The Prothonotary further indicated as a more important consideration that she was not satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time, due to the lack of apparent merit in the Applicant’s application. [10] The standard of review for an order of a Prothonotary is whether it contains an error of law or a palpable and overriding error of fact: Hospira Health Corp. ...
FCTD
Mal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1151
He is now seeking judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Appeal Division [IAD] that dismissed his request for relief on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] considerations. ...
FCA
Betser-Zilevitch v. Nexen Inc., 2019 FCA 230
As stated by the Judge, there must be an objective, mutual intention to create legal relations, consideration flowing in return for a promise, and the terms of the agreement must be objectively certain. ...
FCA
Office and Professional Employees International Union v. Cougar Helicopters Inc., 2019 FCA 231
Canada, 2014 FCA 240 at paras 6-7, and authorities cited therein. [13] Thus, an order will issue adjourning the motion for consideration and determination by the hearing panel in the application for judicial review. ...
FCTD
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Maduabuna, 2019 FC 1214
(Zhao at paragraph 15, my emphasis) [10] The RAD did not take into consideration how the Respondent crossed into Canada. ...
FCTD
Canmar Foods Ltd. v. TA Foods Ltd., 2019 FC 1233, 2019 FC 1229
A party who has cross-examined the deponent of an affidavit filed in a motion may not subsequently file an affidavit in that motion, except with the consent of all other parties or with leave of the Court. [11] The factors to be considered on a Rule 84(2) application are (Pfizer Canada Inc v Rhoxalpharma Inc, 2004 FC 1685 at para 16): The relevancy of the proposed affidavit The absence of prejudice to the opposing party Assistance to the Court The overall interests of justice [12] The final factor includes consideration of whether the further evidence was available and/or could not be anticipated as being relevant at an earlier date (Janssen-Ortho Inc v Canada (Health), 2009 FC 1179 at para 9). [13] The Plaintiff submits that the Further Supplemental Hart Affidavit contains evidence that is relevant to the issues on the Summary Judgment Motion, including the credibility of Mike Popowich. ...