Search - considered

While the applicants make several arguments regarding the unreasonable nature of the Board's credibility determinations, only one of them need be considered by me, as, for the reasons discussed below, it is determinative and results in the Board's decision being set aside.   ... Rather, the respondent asserts that the Board’s negative credibility determination can be upheld based on some of the other factors the Board considered. ...

All things considered, to prove that this sale was not simply a sham intended to allow Mr. ... Rochon to serve twelve (12) other pharmacist clients in addition to the eight (8) clients who were part of the sale on August 2, 2003. [20]            After having carefully considered all of the evidence and arguments brought to the Court’s attention by the parties in their motion records and pleadings during the hearing, I cannot conclude that Mr. ...

In contrast, even though the right to claim compensation for the losses or damages suffered by a party to the contract as a result of the other party’s failure to execute its obligations is a right granted by suppletive law, and even though such claims are rightly considered contractual claims, they cannot be considered claims for amounts under the contract. ...

The Applicant says that if these other factors were considered, they should have been disclosed to her in order to allow her the opportunity to respond to the issue.  The CRA also should have considered the fact that the Applicant had been making payments of $400 per week to address the outstanding debt ...

  [15]            Section 35 of the Information Circular states: Taxpayers are generally considered to be responsible for errors made by third parties acting on their behalf for income tax matters. ... Here, the Committee obviously considered Mr. Spence’s application even though it was a third party that prepared his return. ...

., 2005 FC 1557 (Fuzion), this Court stated that subsection 18.4(2) of the Federal Courts Act did not apply to proceedings initiated under subsection 34(4) of the Act, Fuzion does not expressly exclude the Federal Court of Appeal’s analysis framework found in Macinnis, above. [17]            Therefore, it would not be entirely inappropriate to keep in mind the teachings of Macinnis and Kraft. [18]            In this situation, I do not consider that the respondent’s affidavit establishes a dynamic that should lead me to consider that it is appropriate, under subsection 34(6) of the Act, that SODRAC’s application now be considered as if it were an action. [19]            The respondent’s allegations that this case is a complex one of first instance and may create a precedent are not likely to satisfy me. ... Similar arguments were considered then dismissed in Macinnis. [20]            The fact that the testimony of third parties not under the control of the respondent can be sought shall not lead us here to change our finding. ...

    [29]            However, in this case, after and despite reading this short decision several times, the Court is not satisfied that the RPD considered all the evidence before it. ... In this case, since the Court is not satisfied that the RPD considered, inter alia, the risk tied to mixed blood (Hutu-Tutsi) or the alleged political opinions, it is clear that the laconic statement contained in the decision regarding the application of section 97 is insufficient. ...

  [7]                In the case at bar, having considered all the evidence, that is, the application record, the respondent’s application record, the applicant’s reply record, the transcripts of the examinations of the applicant and of Susan Auchu, her solemn affirmation and the supporting documents, I am satisfied that the applicant has completed the first step ...   [15]            The applicant acknowledged in her argument that she is currently in personal debt if the assessments are considered valid. ...

Therefore, the material produced at Tabs G and I of the Applicant’s Record will not be considered by the Court.   ...   [14]            The Applicant argues that the refund from his 1997 Notice of Assessment is considered a payment on time to the CPP contributions on self-employment earnings and the CRA should have applied the 1997 refund to the amount owing in 1998, which was entirely made up of contributions due on self-employment earnings. ...

The list of required documents, annexed to the letter, stated the following, in particular: evidence of any joint account for the six last months; evidence of a jointly signed lease or a letter from the landlord of the building where the couple lives attesting to that fact; a copy of a joint purchase agreement or mortgage, of a home insurance policy, life insurance policy or even automobile registration and insurance, if applicable; a copy of telephone bill statements or other utility bills for the last six months; proof of benefits from employer for the applicant or sponsor, if applicable; as well as any other information that the applicant wished to be considered by CIC ... Again, the officer explicitly asked the applicant to provide all of the information that he wished to be considered by CIC ...