Search - considered

Here, the Officer considered the evidence but found it to be insufficient. [18]   Furthermore, the Officer’s finding that the Applicant was credible is reasonable.   ... Consistent with Ferguson, it was open to the Officer to assess the weight and probative value of the evidence without considering whether or not the evidence is credible. [27]   On judicial review, it is not the role of this Court to reassess or reweigh the evidence considered by the PRRA Officer (Khansary at para 44 and Ferguson at para 33). [28]   The Applicant argues that the Officer did not specifically address the issue of “night letters” being sent by the Taliban as noted in some of the country condition information.   ...

The Officer nevertheless considered the letter and affidavit, but rejected this evidence for three reasons: (a) it was similar to evidence previously considered by the RPD and RAD; (b) it did not originate from impartial sources; and (c) it was insufficient to overcome the overwhelming credibility concerns identified by the RPD and RAD. [20]   Counsel for the Minister concedes that the evidence could fairly be characterized as “new”, and could not be rejected solely because it originated from interested parties (Kailajanathan at para 16; Tabatadze v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 24 at paras 6-7). [21]   However, the Officer’s finding that the new evidence could not overcome the overwhelming credibility concerns identified by the RPD was reasonable. ...

Legislation [10]   The Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 specifically state that if there is an existing marriage to another person at the time of the marriage of a foreign national and a sponsor, the foreign national shall not be considered a member of the spouse in Canada class: 125 (1) A foreign national shall not be considered a member of the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class [...] if (c) the foreign national is the sponsor’s spouse and (i) the sponsor or the spouse was, at the time of their marriage, the spouse of another person, 125 (1) Ne sont pas considérées comme appartenant à la catégorie des époux ou conjoints de fait au Canada [...] c) l’époux du répondant, si, selon le cas: (i) le répondant ou cet époux était, au moment de leur mariage, l’époux d’un tiers,   IV.   ...

Given that no “new evidence” was admitted under subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD denied the request for an oral hearing. [6]   Second, the RAD found nothing in the record to rebut the presumption that the RPD considered the evidence before it. ... I note that the RAD also explicitly considered his arguments regarding the “stressful nature of refugee hearings” and the “use of translators,” but rejected them in light of the numerous opportunities provided at the hearing to elaborate upon any concerns regarding the hearing, that took place over three hearing dates, over a period of three months before the RPD. [16]   The Applicant further argues that the RAD repeated the RPD’s error of conducting a microscopic analysis of the evidence, thereby ignoring or misconstruing relevant evidence, and applying a Western perspective to non-Western issues. ...

Justice Pentney discussed and considered the parties’ competing interests and found that on balance, the interest of justice favoured adding Taro and Sandoz’s cases to the common hearing of invalidity issues of Teva and Apotex’s. [11]   Notwithstanding the pending appeal and recognizing that different judges may exercise their discretion to reach a different result on identical facts, I would, all things being equal, have reached the same conclusion as Justice Pentney. ... REDDY'S LABORATORIES LTD AND OTHERS PLACE OF HEARING: CONSIDERED IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE   ORDER AND REASONS: TABIB P.   ...

Mr Nugent then requested a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) alleging that, as a bisexual male, he would be at risk of serious harm if he returned to Jamaica. [3]   The officer who considered Mr Nugent’s PRRA application dismissed it because, in his view, Mr Nugent had provided insufficient supporting evidence. ... The officer also considered Mr Nugent’s psychological evaluations, but found that they did not show that Mr Nugent could not obtain appropriate medical services in Jamaica. ...

Mirkarimi’s refugee protection claim then became inadmissible and could no longer be considered. [6]   On October 26, 2016, CIC informed Mr. ... Mirkarimi had been found inadmissible on security grounds under paragraphs 34(1)(c) and (f) of the Act, his PRRA application could be considered only on the basis of factors set out in section 97, in accordance with subsection 113(d) of the Act. [7]   On October 29, 2018, the Officer rendered his decision. ...

However, the RAD considered that the RPD did not err on the other points, namely (1) the fact that the complaint to the police station is dated March 24, 2018, and it was recorded as being received at 1:00 p.m. rather than in the evening, which taints the reliability of the document and does not constitute a minor contradiction; (2) the irregularities in the identification number recorded in the complaint, and the fact that the document is limited to repeating the statements without verification or investigation also taints the reliability of the document and its probative value; and (3) the one-and-a-half-month delay in Mr. ... The Minister adds that all elements relating to the refugee protection claim have been considered. ...

The relevant part of the definition applicable to the taxation years at issue reads: “… it can reasonably be considered, having regard to statements or representations made or proposed to be made in connection with the property, that [within a four year period] … the total of all amounts each of which is … represented to be deductible … would equal or exceed [the cost of the property, as adjusted].” ... It is also my view that the representations were of sufficient detail such that it could reasonably be considered that a prospective purchaser could deduct the full purchase price of the Software over a two year period. [21] These issues raise questions of mixed fact and law to which the palpable and overriding error standard of review applies. [22] The valuation report is central to these issues. ...

They did not offer a consideration of when the amounts of expenses, considered generally in relation to gross income and losses, can lead to a determination as to whether or not there exists a reasonable expectation of profit. ... M.N.R., King D.J.T.C.C., in an unreported decision dated June 27, 1991, considered the Amway activity of a teacher/principal in Saskatchewan who reported losses over a long period of time and concluded that no reasonable expectation of profit existed. ...