Search - considered

Until the Judgment, most jurisprudence dealt with revocation of a registered charity’s registration, whereas the present case considered a suspension of receipting privileges and qualified-donee status under subsection 188.2(2) of the Act and consideration of the consequence imposed in the context of the graduated step approach. [13]   I find that this factor favours an appropriate award of costs in favour of the respondent and would justify an increase over Tariff. ... Conclusion [27]   I have carefully considered each of the factors above. ...

The general rule is that new issues which could have been raised before the administrative decision-maker should not be considered on judicial review (Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2011 SCC 61 at paras 22-26; Forest Ethics Advocacy Association v Canada (National Energy Board), [2015] 4 FCR 75, 2014 FCA 245 at paras 42-47; Erasmo v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FCA 129 at para 33).   ... The panel found that there was nothing in section 158 that limited this expansive authority. [24]   The panel also considered that there were slight differences between the English and French versions of section 158 but found that they did not assist in resolving the interpretative issue before it. [25]   Counsel for the ICCRC had submitted to the panel that the interpretive exercise should also take into account section 91(5) of the IRPA, the provision under which the ICCRC had been designated by the Minister.   ...

In response, TWC filed both a request for reconsideration and an application for judicial review of the July notice of refusal. [7]   On August 21, 2007, the NHPD issued a second notice of refusal informing TWC that upon further review, it had determined that RESOLVE was no longer considered a NHP but rather a drug, and therefore subject to regulation under the Food and Drug Regulations, CRC, c 870. ... I am concerned, however, that this application for judicial review is an attempt to indirectly challenge some of the findings made by the FCA in TWC FCA. [27]   In determining whether the issuance of a mandamus order was warranted in the circumstances of this case, the FCA considered TWC’s argument regarding the excessive delay in processing the application. ...

The Respondent points out that the GCMS notes indicate the Officer was specifically waiting for the submissions, and that the Applicant has not demonstrated that any of her submissions and evidence was not considered. ... In this regard, Justice Roussel stated: [13]   … I have considered the Applicant’s statement that she did not receive the e-mail requesting her attendance. ...

The Guidelines guide the Commission in making its decision. [32]   The respondent maintains that the Commission’s decision was reasonable because it considered Mr.  ... An appointment is based on merit when (1) the person appointed meets the essential qualifications and (2) the Commission takes into account any additional qualifications considered to be an asset for the work to be performed or for the organization, and any current or future operational requirements (section 30 of the Act). [39]   As pointed out by the parties, in short, section 66 of the Act provides that the Commission may conduct an investigation and take corrective action if it is satisfied, for example, that the appointment was not made or proposed to be made on the basis of merit. ...

In view of this Rule, the further evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in his response to the motion to strike cannot be considered. [16]   The facts set out in the statement of claim must be accepted as true unless they are clearly not capable of proof or amount to mere speculation. ... Pentney” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-658-19 STYLE OF CAUSE: KERRY FITZPATRICK v CODIAC REGIONAL RCMP FORCE, DISTRICT 12 AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES, SOR/98-106. ...

In that assessment of the record, I conclude the RPD was not microscopic and that the Appellant is not credible about his central allegations. [19]   The RAD first considered the Applicant’s omission of his father’s death from his U.S. asylum documents against its inclusion in his BOC. ... The RAD exhaustively considered the issue of identity against the evidence before the RPD and the Applicant’s new evidence. ...

Under certain conditions, Article 1E “excludes” from refugee status principal claimants who have left their country of origin (in this case, Haiti) and have obtained permanent resident status in what is considered a “safe” country [the third country] (in this case, Brazil) before coming to Canada and claiming to be refugees. [3]   In that decision, the RAD concluded that, under Article 1E, the principal applicants are excluded from the Convention, as both of them had been granted permanent resident status in Brazil. ... Zeng prevents the Court from drawing conclusions sought by the applicants or the respondent according to which the RAD should have considered the risk to the applicants in Brazil or Haiti [26]   After considering the arguments of the parties, it does not appear that there is much chance of success given the unambiguous contradictory statements made in Zeng. [27]   Both the Minister and the Court of Appeal have recognized the appalling problem of the potential return of a claimant to their country of origin, as an excluded refugee protection claimant, without a proper risk assessment being provided. ...

In particular, the Appeal Division considered the fact that the Employer had put the Applicant on notice that it was aware of prior instances of her drinking and was concerned about her conduct, and that the Applicant understood that the Employer expected her to abstain from alcohol use on reserve. ... This is particularly so given that the Employer’s policies consistently state that discipline “up to and including termination” may result if an employee violates By-law No. 1 or otherwise breaches the Employer’s alcohol prohibition. [31]   Nevertheless, in my view, the Appeal Division erred when it considered the fact that the Applicant knew of the Employer’s decision to summarily terminate her husband as a basis for finding that the Applicant was not entitled to rely on the Employer’s progressive discipline policy or the fact that other employees had received warnings or suspensions prior to termination for drinking on reserve. ...

The Contempt Order [8]   On April 19, 2018, Justice Phelan considered a motion for contempt of the Compliance Order.   ... These post-hearing submissions have been considered in these Reasons. ...