Search - considered

  [7]                In spite of my concerns about the failure of counsel to raise this matter earlier, I have considered his submissions and find that they are without merit. ...   [18]            Where an “extraordinary circumstance beyond the person’s control has prevented the person from complying with the Act”, paragraph 9 of the memorandum sets out a number of factors that “will” be considered to determine whether the penalties and interest should be waived. ...

The fact that you misunderstood the term “unused” is not considered a reasonable error. ... Is not the elimination of the error considered as a reasonable step to correct that error?             ...

The fact sheet showed a liquidity ratio of 0.01285, when a ratio of 2.0 is generally considered sufficient for a company to meet short term needs. The debt ratio was 1,120.47, where a ratio over 1.0 is considered not solvent. ...

He considered the delay to be excessive and attributable to the CRA. According to the Officer, none of the other delays or any error could be attributed to the CRA. [19]            In addition, the Officer concluded that the TCC had upheld all of the assessments challenged by the applicant and that he had lacked diligence by deliberately letting interest accrue on his tax debt. ... Furthermore, he claims that the notice of assessment under section 160 is also invalid, and that the CRA’s decision to issue this notice of assessment was an abuse of power, given that the applicant was no longer a shareholder in Sécovac. [24]            In essence, the applicant contends that the Officer ought to have agreed to waive the interest in order to compensate for the actions of CRA representatives, which he alleges were marked by bad faith and deception in addition to being knowingly misleading. [25]            With respect to the assessment under paragraph 39(1)(c), the applicant asserts that the Officer ought to have considered the argument according to which he would not have initiated the present legal proceedings had the CRA informed him that he could not declare an ABIL, as his company had been struck off the register on May 5, 2000. ...

As a result, the panel did not believe that her problems were related to the alleged events. [23]   The panel concluded that the applicant was not credible with respect to the essentials of her allegations concerning her fears of persecution. [24]   Since the jurisprudence has confirmed that in the case of women, it is important to proceed with a careful analysis to verify if the particular circumstances and the documentation on the country indicate that they could be considered to be victims of persecution, the panel analyzed the context in the Ivory Coast. ... [41]   The applicant holds that the Member ignored relevant pieces of evidence, concluding that there was not a serious risk of persecution based on the fact that she was a member of the social group of women. [42]   The Member recognized her obligation to proceed with a careful analysis to verify if, because of the particular circumstances and documentary evidence concerning sexual violence against women, the applicant could not be considered to be a victim of persecution. [43]   The applicant’s main argument was that the member did not take into account all of the documentation on the situation in the country when she stated that violence against women was sporadic, occurring more frequently during wars or elections. ...

Beima, is seeking the following relief in his lawsuit against the Defendant: a)       $750,000,000.00 CAD; b)       the settlement to be tax exempt; and c)       an order preventing Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] from having any interaction in any way, shape or form with the Plaintiff ever again. [3]                This motion was heard and considered with the motion in T-791-15, and there is considerable overlap in the two claims to which these motions relate. [4]                Both of Mr. ... When a Justice of a Canadian court willfully and knowingly pronounces an order based on perjured submissions, that Justice should be investigated for judicial misconduct, and considered guilty of the very crime the Justice attempted to cover up. ...

Also, the incorrect advice on the 2009 long term disability she received should be considered as circumstance beyond her control. [29]            A review of section 18.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act shows subsection (d) could be relevant. ... I cannot tell how much this influenced the decision maker to deny the relief or whether the result would have been different had the decision maker considered the actual facts. [35]            As a result, the decision is unreasonable and must be set aside and the matter remitted to another decision maker for redetermination. [36]            There shall be no order as to costs.   ...

It concluded that some documents could not be considered to be new evidence because they predated the RPD’s rejection of the claim and because the applicant did not provide any explanation as to why these documents had not been submitted to the RPD. ... The RAD also considered the fact that the applicant had never had any trouble until the incident in the street in August 2014 while he was dressed in clothing linking him to the FPI, which was an isolated act. ...

Decision Under Review [5]                The Recourse Directorate noted that the Decision had been reached following a review of the enforcement action, the evidence and the law applicable to the Applicant’s case and that the documentation provided by the Applicant and the reports from the CBSA issuing office had been fully considered.  ... It is therefore reviewable on a standard of reasonableness (Shin v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2012 FC 1106 at para 47 [Shin]; United Parcel Service Canada Ltd v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 204 at paras 40-43). [24]            In reviewing the Decision on the standard of reasonableness, the Court should not intervene unless the delegate came to a conclusion that is not transparent, justifiable and intelligible and within the range of acceptable outcomes based on the facts and the law (Shin at para 48; Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at para 47; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at para 59). [25]            The Respondent submits that the Applicant provided no evidence or argument as to why the Decision could be considered unlawful or unreasonable.  ...

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, (SOR/2002-227) (the Regulations) explicitly set out the types of relationships that do not satisfy the legislation in terms of what is considered a legitimate marriage for immigration purposes. Subsection 4(1) of the Regulations reads as follows: Bad faith Mauvaise foi 4 (1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a foreign national shall not be considered a spouse, a common-law partner or a conjugal partner of a person if the marriage, common-law partnership or conjugal partnership 4 (1) Pour l’application du présent règlement, l’étranger n’est pas considéré comme étant l’époux, le conjoint de fait ou le partenaire conjugal d’une personne si le mariage ou la relation des conjoints de fait ou des partenaires conjugaux, selon le cas: (a) was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Act; or a) visait principalement l’acquisition d’un statut ou d’un privilège sous le régime de la Loi; (b) is not genuine. b) n’est pas authentique. ...