Search - consideration

Graham J.’s reasons demonstrate careful consideration of the evidence before him and are based on ample evidence of the appellants’ failure to prosecute their appeals after the April 3, 2012 status hearing. [13]            The appeals will therefore be dismissed, with costs. ...

To the extent these matters were dealt with on the review of the jeopardy order, this motion constitutes a collateral attack on the jeopardy order proceedings. [19]            That leaves for consideration the appellant’s argument that non-payment of the criminal fines exposes him to risk of incarceration so as to engage section 7 of the Charter. [20]            Assuming, without deciding that such a threat engages section 7, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the process followed to date, or to be followed, was or is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. [21]            For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal with costs. ...

In its entirety, it reads: UPON the Respondent's motion for an Order directing the Appellant to pay $13,850.00 into Court as security for costs and for an Order awarding costs in this motion; AND UPON consideration of the submissions of counsel for both parties; IT IS ORDERED that: 1. ...

The arguments she makes are not relevant considerations.  I recommend the late filing penalties and interest remain. [12]            This was followed by the final decision by the Director of the Ottawa Technology Centre in the Canada Revenue Agency and delegate to the Minister, who confirmed the denial of relief and stated the following which became relevant during the hearing: You conclude by saying that paying the late filing penalties will cause you immense financial hardship.  ...

Motion disposed of on consideration of written representations Before: The Honourable Lucie Lamarre, Associate Chief Justice Appearances:   For the Appellant: The Appellant himself Counsel for the Respondent: Alexander Menticoglou   ORDER   Upon motion in writing made by the Respondent for an order striking out the Notice of Appeal with leave to amend, pursuant to subsection 53(1) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (Rules), and granting the Respondent 60 days from the date that the Amended Notice of Appeal is filed and served to file a Reply, pursuant to section 12 and paragraph 44(1)(b) of the Rules.     ...

While my view on that matter has not changed, that view plays no part in my consideration of costs. ...

AND AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE WRITTEN REASONS OF BOTH PARTIES:   The Appellant’s motion is disallowed. ...

Second, the potential impact on any future efforts on Mr Azeem’s part to return to Canada is, at this point, entirely speculative. [13]   Finally, to Mr Azeem’s contention that the serious legal issues evade judicial consideration when unsuccessful PRRA applicants are removed from Canada, I agree that these issues are often elusive of judicial review due to mootness. ...

In addition, the officer’s finding that establishment was a negative factor does not appear to genuinely take into consideration all of the challenges Ms. ...

However, our Court has repeatedly stated that a delay in claiming asylum or refugee protection is not sufficient reason to reject a claim and that all the facts and explanations provided to justify the delay must be taken into consideration. ...