Search - considered

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA   MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES   ORDER and reasons: ANNIS J.   ...

Disagreeing over the interpretation to be given to the agreement, or over unessential terms, does not void the initial agreement. [4]   The issue to be determined by the Judge was whether an objective bystander would have considered that the parties intended to bind themselves on sufficiently certain essential terms at the time the agreement was reached. ...

[5]   The Court has received the parties’ submissions and has read and considered them. [6]   The applicant submits that the only opportunity for the Court to order that proceedings be discontinued is at the time the section 40 order is made. ...

It is not transparent that the Officer considered the defence of an innocent mistake exception to misrepresentation. [16]   The defence of innocent misrepresentation is available in limited circumstances; see the decision in Alkhaldi v. ...

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. ...

“John Norris” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-3546-18   STYLE OF CAUSE: MUHAMMAD AFZAL WATTO v IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS OF CANADA REGULATORY COUNCIL AND MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION   MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES ORDER AND REASONS: NORRIS J.   ...

Having considered the applicant’s travel on the Ocean Lady and whether this information was provided to the Sri Lankan authorities, I find that the Sri Lankan authorities would not perceive the applicant to be a supporter or member of the LTTE as a result of his travel on the Ocean Lady.   ...

Here, there is no risk of an injustice and the issue need not be considered (Guindon v. ...

The Agency itself considered the determinative issue before it to be one of weighing the respective benefits that the parties would realize from the grade-separated crossing (at para. 121). [4]   The appellant submits that the Agency erred in law in assessing relative benefits under subsection 16(4) of the Act by comparing the benefits of the grade separation to those of an at-grade crossing which it concluded would be unsuitable.   ...

[Emphasis in original.] [5]   Douglas College subsequently provided a letter dated August 3, 2018 that said, in part, as follows: The letter is to confirm the Harinder Singh Grewal received his Graduation Letter from Douglas College International Office on February 14, 2018, not on January 11, 2018 as originally considered. [6]   Mr. ...