Search - considered

Furthermore, the applicant must be either owned or controlled by that municipality or municipalities. [13]            An organization will be considered to be owned by one or more municipalities if those municipalities own at least 90 per cent of the shares or capital of the organization, or if those municipalities hold title to the assets of the organization or control their disposition – so that in the event of a wind-up or liquidation, the assets are vested in those municipalities. [14]            An organization will be considered to be controlled by one or more municipalities if those municipalities appoint a majority of the members of the governing body of the organization and the organization is required to submit its operating budget (and where applicable its capital budget) to those municipalities for review and approval. [15]            Mr Nault observes that the administrative policy behind municipal determinations requires that an applicant must be providing services to the residents or property owners of a community, and that those services be of a type that a municipality would otherwise provide. ... A municipal determination may be granted where an organization may be considered to be operating like a department providing municipal services or performing municipal functions. [33]            Mr Nault concludes that the nature and scope of the UMNB’s activities do not fall within the tax policy rationale for municipal determinations. ... However, this does not mean that policy factors should never be considered. ...

The Respondent [50]   The Respondent maintains that the Commissioner carefully considered the Applicants’ disclosure of wrongdoing and reasonably concluded that he had no reason to believe that any wrongdoing had been committed within the meaning of section 8 of the Act. [51]   In the Respondent’s view, decisions surrounding the formulation and structure of a disclosure under the Act are those of a discloser, including whether to include certain documents or simply describe their contents and reference them in footnotes. ... [60]   The Respondent says the Commissioner’s decision cannot be supplemented through affidavit evidence unless that evidence falls within the recognized exceptions to the general rule that only the evidence before a decision-maker can be considered on judicial review. ... In rendering its judgment, the Court has disregarded and not considered those portions of the Applicants’ affidavit containing legal argument or information not directly before the Commissioner. ...

Nurridinov’s ability to obtain an exit visa undermined the credibility of his allegation that he was arrested and tortured by the SNB because of his association with local Muslims. [21]   The RAD then considered the RPD’s negative assessment of Ms. ... They argue that the RPD’s decision is a final judgment and should not be used as notice for issues to be considered in a subsequent proceeding. ... The RAD comprehensively considered each of the Applicants’ grounds of appeal and set out its reasoning intelligibly. ...

The ID therefore considered Ms. Dayal as the sole sponsor when assessing the sponsorship application. ... Dayal had made insufficient concrete plans for financially supporting, housing, or caring for herself, her children, and the visa applicants post-divorce. [12]   The IAD next considered the evidence of domestic abuse and the best interests of her dependent children. ... While the IAD did not use the term “BIOC” throughout its reasons, the Minister submits it is clear such interests were taken into account, in particular when the IAD considered the impacts of an unstable source of income and concerns of future (un)employability. (3)   Analysis [30]   Kanthasamy changed the law on H&C. ...

A t the hearing before this Court, however, counsel for the Defendants insisted on FC Rule 385 and went much further, suggesting that, in the particular context of class action proceedings, FC Rule 385 should be read and interpreted as superseding paragraph 50(1)(b) of the FC Act and the case law on the “interest of justice” test. [16]   I am not ready to accept the Defendants’ invitation to adopt such an expansive view of FC Rule 385. [17]   I agree with the Defendants that, in the specific context of class proceedings, no cases dealing with the “interest of justice” test have specifically considered the interface between FC Rule 385 and paragraph 50(1)(b) of the FC Act. ... That is, the judge considered that a period of three months between the issuance of the Godfrey decision and the certification motion hearing would have been sufficient for the parties to prepare their case. ... Again, the presiding judge considered that a postponement of the certification motion hearing by about four months would likely be enough to allow the parties to take into account the impact of the SCC decision in Godfrey and adjust their certification materials. [34]   The timetable faced by the Defendants in the current case is already far more generous and completely different from those cases where the courts have agreed to “pause” parallel competition class actions pending the release of the Godfrey decision. ...

The Visa Officer checked off the “Purpose of visit” box as the factor he considered in reaching this decision. ... It seems to me that the Visa Officer should have considered whether the Applicant fell under the innocent misrepresentation exception. [45]   The Respondent suggests that by disclosing the background of what went on in the U.S. only in answer to the procedural fairness letter, the Applicant was looking to correct a misrepresentation after the fact. ... If the conclusion does not flow from the premises, or if the use of boilerplate gives cause to doubt that the decision-maker duly considered the specific facts of the case, the decision may well be unreasonable. ...

The respondent’s counsel replied by letter dated August 21, 2020. [13]   Mr Hughes commenced this motion by Notice of Motion filed September 21, 2020, while the Court considered the Rule 51 appeal. ... Astrazeneca Canada Inc., 2012 FC 559, at para 19; and Morin v R, 2002 FCT 1312, at para 109, which relied on the test in Andersen Consulting v R, [1998] 1 FC 605 (CA), at paras 13-14. [51]   In Andersen, the Federal Court of Appeal considered amendments that included the withdrawal of admissions made in a Statement of Defence. The Court of Appeal preferred a test for withdrawal of admissions that considered whether “in all the circumstances of the case, there be a triable issue which ought to be tried in the interests of justice and not be left to an admission of fact. ...

His request for remission was largely based on a series of contractual arrangements entered into by the corporation and misconduct by the counterparties to those arrangements. [3] I have considered Mr. ... The Guide is just that, a guide that identifies characteristics common to past cases that form a framework for review but recognizes that each request must be considered on its own merits. ... Trueman also stated that he had considered Mr. Jefferson’s circumstances “to determine if it is fair, reasonable, or in the public interest to recommend remission”. [36] Mr. ...

A number of the claims being made in support of irreparable harm allegations relate to past harms; other claims are speculative, based on assertion or on evidence that lacks particularity; and a number of other claims relate to the impact on third parties, which is generally not considered when determining whether an applicant will suffer irreparable harm. [54] Given the nature of the harm that Iristel claims, it is necessary that concrete evidence be presented to the Court on Iristel’s current financial situation and how the failure to grant injunctive relief will result in that harm. ... Generally, harm to third parties is not considered in the irreparable harm analysis (Richardson v Seventh-day Adventist Church, 2021 FC 609 at para 40 [Richardson]; Air Passengers Rights v Canada (Transportation Agency), 2020 FCA 92 at para 30 [Air Passengers Rights]). ... As stated by the Federal Court of Appeal, “there is a limited exception to this principle in that the interests of those individuals dependent on a registered charity may also be considered under this branch of the test (Glooscap at paras 33-34; Holy Alpha and Omega Church of Toronto v Canada (Attorney General), 2009 FCA 265 at para 17; Air Passengers Rights at para 30).” [64] Iristel did not direct the Court to any cases where this exception has expanded to include other entities that are not registered charities, nor was this issue canvassed in any way in their written submissions. [65] I need not decide the applicability of the exception to the general rule that third party harm not be considered at the irreparable harm stage, and specifically whether it could apply to a regulated telecommunications company like Iristel. ...

With respect to the allegations of bias, the Respondent submits that the Review Panel, guided by the jurisprudence, considered the possibility of future bias or the reasonable perception of future bias based on the facts. ... B’nai Brith has a perspective on particular aspects of the issue. [87] In assessing the usefulness of the proposed intervention, as required by Rule 109, I have considered the questions identified by Justice Stratas in Council of Refugees at para 6. [88] The CFE and CAUT will provide their insight and perspective and will elaborate on the issue of academic freedom and the impact of judicial interference as raised by the Applicants. ... Kane" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD   DOCKET: T-1005-21   STYLE OF CAUSE: NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CANADIAN MUSLIMS, CRAIG SCOTT, LESLIE GREEN, ARAB CANADIAN LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, INDEPENDENT JEWISH VOICES AND CANADIAN MUSLIM LAWYERS ASSOCIATION v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA AND CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND CENTRE FOR FREE EXPRESSION AND CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS AND B’NAI BRITH OF CANADA LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS   MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES   ORDER and reasons: kane J.   ...