Search - considered

Many of the relevant precedents refer to a continuing intention to pursue an application for judicial review, but in my view it is sufficient that the Applicant demonstrated a continuing intention to pursue her legal remedies in regard to the decision: Apv Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2001 FCT 737 at para 13. [50]   I have carefully considered the Band’s arguments in favour of an extension of the subsection 18.1(2) time limit but decline to extend the period for the following reasons. [51]   First, the deadline set out in subsection 18.1(2) of the Act serves an important public interest. ... At the hearing of this matter, counsel for the Legal Counsel Respondents requested costs in the amount of $15,000.00. [58]   I have considered the Legal Counsel Respondents’ request for a lump sum award of costs against the factors set out in Rule 400(3). ...

Reviewing courts must also refrain from reweighing and reassessing the evidence considered by the decision maker (Khosa, at para. 64). ... The Applicant had also written that “‘Credibility’ is an issue in every refugee claim, and it was stated to be so herein, both at the beginning and at the conclusion of the oral testimony phase of this claim.” [24]   While I note the RPD in fact made no reference to credibility, nor use the term itself, the Applicant alleges the RAD made four ‘disguised’ adverse credibility findings against the mother, and submits the RAD erred by making these findings without providing prior notice to the Applicant. [25]   First, the RAD went beyond the conclusion of the RPD that the Applicant would not be considered a member of the Ex-boyfriend’s family, and questioned the nature of the relationship between the two. ...

This is all the more evident in the case of an individual who is visually impaired and understands English and/or French: this person cannot read the bilingual sign above drinking fountains, unless there are also Braille inscriptions in both official languages, which is not currently the case. [48]   It needs to be said loud and clear: communication goes hand in hand with service, and vice versa. [49]   The overall spirit of the Charter and OLA must also be considered when interpreting the scope of language obligations. ... Awarding damages to the applicant speaks to the value that the Court places on protecting minorities and ensuring that this type of remedy has a place in advancing the equality of status between the two official languages. [70]   All things considered, $1,500 is not excessive in the circumstances. ...

The SIO next considered Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2018 – Turkey and determined Turkey was “Not Free.” [13]   The SIO summarized Mr. ... The SIO therefore should have considered whether either of or both these documents corroborated Mr. ...

The application of this subsection was raised during the trial but was not considered by the Tax Court. ... Examples of the evidence of decision-making considered by the Tax Court are: (i) the director was the sister of one of the shareholders; (ii) she had no experience in farming and no prior business experience; (iii) she paid the bills for the appellant based on instructions from the shareholders; (iv) she executed documents to implement decisions made by the shareholders; (v) she did not participate in the decision to dispose of the appellant’s interest in the farm partnership; and (vi) she was not included in certain important email exchanges made in 2009 between the shareholders in Canada and their Canadian and Dutch advisors or their Canadian accountant to finalize the restructuring of the shareholders’ family holdings to address tax planning issues (Reasons at paragraphs 7 and 43; respondent’s memorandum of fact and law at paragraphs 6, 10, 31, 33 and 36). [11]   As part of its residency argument, the appellant added that the Minister’s acceptance of the appellant’s residency as being the Netherlands for previous tax years binds the Minister. ...

The relative weight of each will depend on the particular facts and circumstances of the case. [24]   Under Quebec law, the intention of the parties is a very important factor to be considered. ... This factor, which should be considered from the worker's point of view, is also indicative of a contract of employment. ...

The Tax Court erred in law in finding otherwise. [28]   In reaching this conclusion I have considered the 1982 Explanatory Notes to section 227.1 and the 1988 Technical Notes to paragraph 227.1(2)(a) relied upon by counsel for the respondent. [29]   While Explanatory and Technical Notes are permissible, extrinsic interpretive aids (Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. ... The Court’s remarks were in the nature of a general description of the legislation and were not a considered interpretation of subsection 227.1(1). ...

To answer this question, the motions judge considered whether the appellant had a strong case in light of the language of subsection 229(1) of the ETA and the test for mandamus stated in Apotex Inc. v. ... Those ten months have not yet elapsed. [47]   Finally I would add that the words “all due dispatch” in subsection 229(1) have to be considered in light of the fact that the GST/HST scheme operates on a net tax refund basis. ...

Having considered the facts, circumstances, and the current sate of the law, I conclude that there is no uncertainty as to how Vavilov relates to this matter. ... The secondary Officer also considered Mr. Robidoux’s border crossing history, noting frequent crossing with many instances where Mr. ...

There is no discussion of whether the question is premature and therefore, whether at this stage of the proceedings, the answer is neither a definitive yes or no. [16]   In my view, the question that is posed cannot be answered with either an unqualified yes or an unqualified no. [17]   Although the question that is posed is a generic question, it cannot be considered in a vacuum, completely isolated from the appeal (or appeals) which gave rise to the question. ... (emphasis added) (Non souligné dans l’original) [18]   The Rule 58 question will, therefore, be considered in the context of the underlying appeals that are before the Tax Court. [19]   In this case, there has not yet been any finding made by any court with respect to the validity of the purported partnerships. ...