Search - considered

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. ...

According to the Applicant, this hierarchical structure is one in which the SP0465 position encompasses employees with varying degrees of knowledge and responsibility, as some employees have little experience while others are responsible for CoE and non-resident tax matters, with the employees with little experience referring complex matters to the more knowledgeable ones. [29]            The Respondent claims that the Committee considered the evidence concerning the hierarchical structure of the SP0465 position and that the Applicant’s submissions about the organizational structure of the SP0465 position are not relevant in the context of a classification grievance, though they would be so in a work description grievance. ... The Respondent maintains that the Committee reasonably assessed the written work description when employing the Standard to determine an appropriate classification for the position. [30]            In my view, the Committee’s reasons in this case make it abundantly clear that it considered the hierarchical organizational structure of the SP0465 position in determining the appropriate classification for the position. ...

It is to be remarked however that this statement was [Page 410] not necessary for the decision of the case, for the betting in question was not considered as unlawful, although of course no action would have lain to recover the bets. ... The learned trial judge also considered that the appellant should not be heard to invoke his own turpitude to claim indemnity from paying taxes and to be placed in a better position than if he were an honest and legal trader. ...

It may be considered as axiomatic that a grant of legislative authority to a British colony for “the peace, order and good government” of the colony, does not, as a general rule, empower the colonial legislature to enact laws penalizing acts, otherwise lawful, done beyond the territory of the colony, or legalizing such acts when otherwise unlawful. ... Upon the reference to this Court of the Bigamy Sections of the Criminal Code [12], the point considered was whether these sections were, by reason of their extra-territorial operation, ultra vires of the Dominion to legislate for the criminal law, and the legislation was upheld by the majority of the court; but the learned Chief Justice (Strong), although he dissented in the particular case, gave expression in his judgment to the view which, I think, is not controverted, that As the Imperial Parliament is a sovereign legislature I do not for a moment dispute the proposition that it may confer upon a colonial legislature powers in this respect co-equal with its own, by granting it authority to enact the personal liability of all British subjects resident within its jurisdiction, or indeed of all British subjects generally, for crimes committed without the jurisdiction. ...

Of course, the appellant cannot be considered as exercising a "profession" within the meaning of that word in the usual language, but he relies on the use of the word "profession" in section 7 (b) of the Act, and he claims to be entitled to the exemption therein provided. ... Of course, in order to claim the exemption, the appellant had first to show that his profits depended entirely, or at least mainly, upon his personal qualifications, but the proviso in the section must also be considered. ...