Search - considered

The Judge expressed concern about the reliability of the evidence and considered the weight to be given to the evidence. ...

It is noteworthy to mention the following: the issue of whether the services in this case were rendered or not – notwithstanding by whom – could be considered a relevant consideration not only to determine if the appellant was entitled to the ITC, but also to determine if the appellant acted in good faith. [7]                Findings of facts and of mixed fact and law of the Judge are reviewable under the standard of palpable and overriding error (Housen v. ...

No. 955, at paragraphs 41-43). [5]                Contrary to counsel for the appellant’s submissions, the Judge’s reasons demonstrate that he properly considered the appellant's background and circumstances. [6]                Second, the appellant has failed to establish that the Judge misapplied the correct legal test. ...

Any objections received after the Participation Deadline shall not be considered at the hearing to approve the proposed settlement without leave of the Court. ...

Justice Shore BETWEEN: ALEXANDRO SAUL COLMENARES AYALA IRENE GUADALUPE MARTINEZ MADUENO GRECIA GUADALUPE COLMENARES MARTINEZ CARLOS DANIEL COLMENARES MARTINEZ SKARLETT ALEXANDRA COLMENARES MARTINEZ SAUL DAMIAN COLMENARES MARTINEZ Applicants and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent ORDER AND REASONS [1]   The application before the Court is for a stay of removal on the basis of a pending application for leave and judicial review. [2]   Serious issues are raised in respect of a decision, not to defer removal, considering specific serious health issues being comprehensively treated in Canada for a child who will in, all likelihood, not be treated for the multi-faceted health issues under the existing and ensuing circumstances, if removed to her country of origin. [3]   It is also recognized that a pending humanitarian and compassionate application is in purview. [4]   It appears that the Applicants will suffer irreparable harm due to Skarlett’s serious condition, if present continuous treatment is discontinued. [5]   On the basis of evidence as per the Toth v Canada tripartite conjunctive test (Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1988) 86 NR 302 (FCA)), the balance of convenience favours the Applicants under the circumstances and fulsome context of the case. [6]   It is understood that determination of the serious issue requires a strong case as the discretion to defer removal is of a limited nature. [7]   Having considered all of the written and oral submissions of the respective parties, the Court concludes that a serious issue does exist as to the best interests of the child, Skarlett, who has been diagnosed with a serious medical condition with its inherent complications, affecting multiple aspects of the child’s serious health issues. ...

Justice Shore BETWEEN: FAZAL KARAM Applicant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1]   This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] dated January 9, 2019, in which it was concluded that the Applicant is not a Convention Refugee, confirming a previous decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD], due to lack of credibility. [2]   The RAD rejected the Applicant’s appeal as the Applicant’s conduct was inconsistent with that of a genuine refugee who would have reason to fear persecution in Pakistan. [3]   The RAD dismissed the Applicant’s appeal in its confirmation of the Applicant’s lack of credibility, not due to exclusion from refugee protection as per Section 1E of the Refugee Convention, but in respect of both his behaviour and narrative. [4]   The behaviour of the Applicant was not credible when analyzed on the basis of his narrative. [5]   Subsequent to the failure of the Applicant’s business in the United Arab Emirates [UAE], the RAD found the Applicant’s return to the UAE as implausible under the circumstances and in the context described by the Applicant. [6]   The Applicant’s obtention of a visitor’s visa to visit his brother in Canada and his travel activity subsequent to the failure of his business in the UAE, did not appear to have any plausible basis under the circumstances of the Applicant’s narrative. [7]   Key documents submitted to bolster the Applicant’s claim lacked authenticity, and one important document was considered on its face as fraudulent in respect of background to his narrative. [8]   No reasonable basis for apprehension of persecution exists in the narrative of the Applicant’s claim due to it lacking substance (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Davoodabadi, 2019 FC 350; Darabos v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 484 at para 20). [9]   The Applicant did not discharge the burden of establishing that the conclusions based on the evidence, as effectively analyzed by the RAD, were unreasonable. ...

Although the officer is required to provide reasons for his decision, GCMS notes are generally considered sufficient. ...

In this case, it is immaterial whether the 2004 or 2018 text is considered, since nothing has changed. [8]   “The only question to determine is whether the Officer’s equivalency findings and her resulting inadmissibility conclusions are reasonable.” ...

However, in my view, the RAD separately considered whether the Applicants are at risk. ...

In the circumstances of the case at bar, we are satisfied that Kampo J.T.C.C. correctly considered that the disbursement was essential for the conduct of the appeal. ...