Search - considered

The Applicants’ arguments have been considered in this context. IV.   ... They acknowledge that the RAD is presumed to have considered all the evidence presented to it unless the contrary can be shown. ... The RAD considered both prongs of the IFA test and reasonably found that the Applicants would not be at risk of persecution in Ibadan. ...

While these were positive factors towards establishment in Canada, the IAD found they were not enough to outweigh what it considered to be lacking in terms of establishment. ... In that respect, the circumstances are similar to those considered in Damian (see para 18), and the applicability of that language is not determinative of this matter. ... However, there is a rebuttable presumption that it has considered all the evidence. ...

As part of their application, they submitted 15 support letters, country condition documents, a police report and a sworn declaration, all of which were considered by the Officer. ... In this case the Officer only considered the personalization of the risk as it related to El Chiqui, not others who, by his own conclusion, were looking for the Applicants, and threatening their family members still in Honduras. ... There is no doubt that an IFA must be considered in light of the circumstances then confronting the Officer. ...

The CRA considered these documents as a request for a second review of the first decisions. [13] Ms. ... Singh’s oral and written representations and supporting documentation submitted after the first review were duly considered. ... Singh that had not been submitted before the CRA during the first reviews, and she considered these additional submissions as well. ...

An organization cannot be considered to be engaged in the production of ONC based on an isolated act. ... This aligns with the CRA’s position that a three-week period is generally representative of an organization’s activities and allows the organization to present its case. [42] The three-week news content sample considered by the CRA included 423 news reports. ... The Officer’s report found that 10 of the 423 items reviewed over a three-week period could be considered original news content. [43] The Act at subparagraph 248(1)(a)(v) requires a QCJO to be “engaged in the production of original news content.” ...

Therefore they must be considered under the principles of the solicitor-client relationship. ... the communication must be directly related to the seeking, formulating as giving of legal advice. @ B A... evidence as to what monies a solicitor holds, has received, or has paid on behalf of a client is not privileged because the handling of a client = s funds is considered to be an act, not a communication. @ [11]            I have also examined the documents in question. ... As such, and without some other evidence, it cannot be considered as a privileged communication. ...

Subsection 225.2(1) of the Income Tax Act provides as follows: SEC. 225.2 Collection in jeopardy. (1) Notwithstanding section 225.1, where it may reasonably be considered that collection of an amount assessed in respect of a taxpayer would be jeopardized by a delay in the collection thereof, and the Minister has, by notice served personally or by registered letter addressed to the taxpayer at his latest known address, so advised the taxpayer and directed the taxpayer to pay forthwith the amount assessed or any part thereof, the Minister may forthwith take any of the actions described in paragraphs 225.1(a) to (g) with respect to that amount or that part thereof. ... By virtue of section 225.2, the Minister may give a notice or direction to pay forthwith an amount assessed for tax where it may reasonably be considered by the Minister that the collection of the amount so assessed would be jeopardized by a delay in the collection thereof. ... The test of "whether it may reasonably be considered” is susceptible of being reasonably translated into the test of whether the evidence on balance of probability is sufficient to lead to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that collection would be jeopardized by delay. ...

The documentary evidence also confirms that the Raheys had knowledge of the balance owing for 1992 and 1993. [13]            The Respondent argues that all relevant factors were considered in the refusal to grant relief- or at least there is no evidence that the relevant factors were not considered. I agree but only in part. [14]            The Respondent does not appear to have considered the issue of whether penalties were justified. ...

In addition, the respondent was arrested on the ground that he was considered a flight risk based on his history. [4]                The ID has kept the respondent in detention since 2013, following at least 35 detention reviews for flight risk, and no reasonable alternatives were seen based on the circumstances of the case. [5]                No justification of the ID’s decision is considered reasonable based on the facts of the case. [6]                In order to set aside an earlier reasoning of the ID concerning a release from custody, there is an obligation to provide a rationale for its departure from previous decisions, only if the situation has changed to in fact provide a reasonable justification for a release from custody. ... However, previous decisions to detain the individual must be considered at subsequent reviews and the Immigration Division must give clear and compelling reasons for departing from previous decisions. [8]                The applicant fully satisfied the requirements specified in this decision. [9]                The ID has ignored clear-cut evidence. [10]            A decision-maker cannot speculate rather than analyze evidence in the docket that the decision-maker must consider (see Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. ...

The Opinion concluded that the Applicant not be allowed to remain in Canada as he is considered a danger to the Canadian public as per paragraph 115(2)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27. [2]   The Applicant was born and is a citizen of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. The Applicant was granted Convention Refugee status at the age of fifteen in June 2003, and Permanent Resident status in Canada in June 2004. [3]   The Applicant had committed: offences comprised of possession of property obtained by crime on October 29, 2007, contrary to paragraph 354(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, RSC, 1985, c C-46 [CC]; failure to comply with conditions of undertaking or recognizance contrary to paragraph 145(3)(b) of the CC on June 20, 2007; possession of substances in schedule II for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to paragraph 5(2)(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19, on February 13, 2008, and two further convictions for possession of substances included in schedule II for the purpose of trafficking; also for which he was convicted of robbery, contrary to subsection 344(b) of the CC and several failures to comply with conditions of undertaking, contrary to paragraph 145(3)(b) of the CC. [4]   After the 2014 Opinion of the Minister, the Applicant was convicted of failure to stop as requested by a police officer, contrary to subsection 249.1(01) of the CC; also of dangerous driving, contrary to paragraph 249(01)(a); in addition to resisting police, contrary to subsections 129(a) and 129(d). [5]   Furthermore, on March 2, 2018, for crimes committed on February 25, 2018, the Applicant failed to comply with condition or recognizance, contrary to paragraph 145(3)(a) of the CC; also dangerous driving as per paragraphs 249(01)(a) and 249(02)(a) of the CC; the Applicant also failed to stop as requested by a police officer, contrary to subsection 249.1(01) and paragraph 249.1(02)(a) of the CC; also, resisting police, contrary to subsections 129(a) and 129(d) of the CC. [6]   All of which together constituted a danger opinion; for the latest crimes committed by the Applicant was serving in prison when the danger opinion was rendered. [7]   The delegate’s opinion is reasonable under the circumstances as the danger to the public is considered to be more substantial than any risk to the Applicant. [8]   In addition, the Minister’s delegate did consider the best interests of the children in accordance with the jurisprudence thereon. [9]   The evidence in respect to the children, family, spouse and applicant, was considered as is evident for the Minister delegate’s opinion. ...