Search - considered

For these reasons, the Court finds that the RPD member did not demonstrate what could reasonably be considered bias because he conducted an in-depth and independent review of the record before him. ... A tribunal must be careful when rendering a decision based on a lack of plausibility because refugee claimants come from diverse cultures, and actions which appear implausible when judged from Canadian standards might be plausible when considered from within the claimant’s milieu. ...

Saad contravened the Customs Act, RSC, 1985, c 1 (2 nd Supp) [Customs Act] cannot be considered on this application. ... Canada (Border Services Agency), 2013 FC 1260 at para 15). [21]            Because the contravention of the Customs Act cannot be considered on this application, I will not address any arguments made by Mr. ...

Second, under paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7, this Court has no jurisdiction to award damages in judicial review (Canada (Attorney General) v TeleZone Inc, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585 at para 52). [9]   Having considered all of the parties’ representations, the Court finds that the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal constitutes an acceptable outcome based on the evidentiary record and the applicable law. ... Although the Court appreciates the difficult and precarious situation that the applicant finds himself in, with respect, the applicant’s appeal before the Tribunal had absolutely no reasonable chance of success on the merits. [15]   Fifth, no serious arguments have been raised before this Court by the applicant with respect to any alleged violation of sections 7 or 15 of the Charter or of subsection 36(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982,   which were briefly alluded to by the applicant with no further clarifications, and no notice of constitutional question was served on or filed with this Court under section 57 of the Federal Courts Act, so that the statutory and regulatory provisions at issue cannot be judged to be invalid, inapplicable or inoperable (Bilodeau-Massé v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FC 604 at paras 84-88). [16]   That said, the applicant is mainly relying on the “Guide for Canadians” drafted at the time of the Brian Mulroney government, a document that is not binding, as well as on Bank of Toronto v Lambe (1887), 12 App Cas 575; Co‑operative Committee on Japanese Canadians v Attorney-General of Canada, 1946 CanLII 361 (UK JCPC), [1947] AC 87; Fort Frances Pulp and Power Co v Manitoba Free Press Co Ltd, [1923] AC 695, 1923 CanLII 429 (UK JCPC), which had been decided before the Charter came into force in 1982. [17]   In Gosselin v Quebec (Attorney General), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 429 [Gosselin], the Supreme Court of Canada considered section 45 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, CQLR c C-12 (in light of paragraph 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 993 UNTS 3 and of articles 22 and 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res 217 A (III), Doc A/810 UN, p 71 (1948)), as well as sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. ...

The Decision under Review [10]   The January 10, 2018 decision letter stated that 405’s circumstances had been carefully considered and that pursuant to Information Circular IC00-1R5, the disclosure was found not to be “voluntary.”   ... The respondent submits that the notes are part of the record and were properly considered by the Delegate. [21]   There is no doubt that the notes form part of the record in this case and were available to the Delegate to consider. ...

Masson submits that the CRA should nonetheless have considered the errors, acts and/or omissions of the advisor representing him at the time of the transfer and the inaction of the notary who should have warned him of the disastrous consequences of the transactions. ... Masson’s submissions. [27]   First, it has been well established that a decision-maker is presumed to have considered all the evidence and is not required to refer to “all the arguments, statutory provisions, jurisprudence or other details the reviewing judge would have preferred” (Newfoundland Nurses at para 16). ...

Their claims were heard together, and the Principal Applicant was appointed the designated representative of Viktoria. [11]   The RPD determined that there was no nexus to a Convention ground under section 96 of the IRPA, and therefore the Applicants’ claims were considered under section 97. The determinative issues for the RPD were credibility and state protection. [12]   The RPD rejected much of the Applicants’ evidence due to a lack of credibility, finding that the Applicants had failed to establish: (i) that Lutfi was alive or present in Albania; (ii) that the person who attended Viktoria’s kindergarten had ill intent; and (iii) that the threatening phone call had occured. [13]   The RPD found that the Applicants had omitted information from their BOC, had embellished aspects of their testimony, and the Applicants’ allegations were not consistent with the documentary evidence of blood feuds in Albania. [14]   The RPD next considered state protection, and concluded that the Applicants had failed to rebut the presumption of state protection. ...

In the Respondent’s view, there is nothing to suggest that the Officer considered each piece of evidence by itself without considering the circumstances of the Applicant’s family as a broader whole. ... The Officer’s reasons demonstrate that he or she was cognizant of the challenges the Applicant and his family have faced and the ways in which they have established themselves in South Africa in determining whether a durable solution existed. [25]   The Officer reviewed the evidence holistically and considered such factors as: that the Applicant’s children attended school; that the Applicant and his family had formal asylum status; that the Applicant owned a grocery store; and that the Applicant had financially established himself in South Africa. ...

The RAD rejected the drug cartel objection as it was a generalized risk and considered the first two IFA’s. [20]   The RAD identified and discussed the two-prong test: (1) it must be satisfied that, on a balance of probabilities, there is no serious possibility of the Applicant been personally subjected to a risk to his life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or the danger of torture in the part of the country in which the IFA is located; (2) conditions in the IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for the claimant to seek refuge there. [21]   Contrary to the RPD, the RAD found that the Applicant was personally targeted within the definition under section 97 of the IRPA. ... Without that special access to something the criminals wanted there was insufficient reason to believe he would have been bothered by them. [23]   The RAD considered that the union members who targeted the Applicant are all part of the local Union in Guadalajara, Jalisco State, Mexico. ...

To attempt to do so would trivialize the Charter and inevitably result in ill-considered opinions.   ... Nevertheless, I am not satisfied that this challenge can be considered properly in a complete factual vacuum.   ...

Azam was therefore considered inadmissible under subparagraph 36(1)(c) of the IRPA. ... Conclusion [25]   Due to all of the above, the decision before the Court is considered reasonable under the circumstances; and, therefore, the judicial review is dismissed. ...