Search - considered

The units claimed under Tariff B for preparation and filing of the defence (item 2), preparation for the trial (item 13), attendance in Court (item 14), services after judgment (item 25) and assessment of costs (item 26) are not disputed and are considered reasonable and will therefore be allowed as claimed ...   [6] The disbursements claimed in the respondent’s bill of costs are not disputed, are considered necessary and reasonable charges to the conduct of this matter and will be allowed as claimed ...

Justice Shore BETWEEN: JEYLANI SHARIF MOWLANA Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondents ORDER UPON motion on behalf of the Applicant for a stay of removal, scheduled for tomorrow, August 9, 2019, pending the determination of an application for leave and judicial review of a Pre-removal Risk Assessment decision; AND UPON having read and considered the written submissions, as well as having heard the oral submissions of both parties; Subsequent to consideration of the tripartite conjunctive criteria of the Toth v Canada test (Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1988) 86 NR 302 (FCA)); RECOGNIZING that the standard of review of an enforcement officer’s decision is that of reasonableness, a strong case must exist within specific context under the circumstances; whereas, there is ample objective and subjective evidence to demonstrate serious peril to life and limb as shown herein (Baron v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81); ACKNOWLEDGING the higher standard in respect of serious issue on a matter of refusal to defer a stay; and recognizing, if a stay is granted, it has bearing on the underlying judicial review application (Wang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 148, [2001] FCJ No 295 (TD)); RECOGNIZING the consequences of the Applicant’s crime of absconding food stamps, worth $200,000 committed in 2004 and for which he was convicted in 2011 (food stamps used in his store by which customers did benefit as did he with exchanges for the food stamps, in contravention of the food stamp scheme; the Applicant was sentenced to three years of probation and monthly restitution of food stamp value, which he made in monthly payments until his departure from the United States, when the Applicant was informed that he will be removed to his country of origin, Somalia); all of which the Court weighed against the background of serious peril to the Applicant’s life and limb, if he is returned to his country of origin. ... CONSIDERING this is an exceptional case unto itself in regard to its context; ACKNOWLEDGING the potential of irreparable harm to life and limb of the Applicant as clearly demonstrated in stark potential in the objective and subjective evidence when all country condition documentation is read in context with the subjective evidence of the Applicant on file; AND FURTHER RECOGNIZING that the family of the Applicant is in a refugee camp in Kenya, subsequent to fleeing peril; THUS, CONSIDERING that the balance of convenience favors the Applicant when analyzing the fulsome serious nature of the Applicant’s situation as to the jeopardy to his life, duly noting that his mother and sister were killed and his immediate family was forced to flee to save their lives; all of which must be considered in context of the country conditions of his country of origin; THEREFORE, THIS COURT ORDERS that the stay be granted until the Court finally disposes of the pending application for leave and judicial review. ...

(Salomon Herrada v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1004 [Salomon]; Jozsefne v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2008 FC 1411; and Malagon v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1068, with respect to the documents considered to have no probative value.) [10]   On July 29, 2019, the applicant was advised of her removal scheduled for August 22, 2019, that is, three weeks after her Direction to Report in which she was informed of the decision regarding her removal. [11]   Having considered the written and oral representations of both parties, the Court is of the opinion that the stay application is without merit (Salomon, above, at paras 30 to 32). [12]   The removal order is reasonable, as the applicant did not meet the three criteria in Toth (Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 86 NR 302 (FCA)). [13]   With respect to the arguments relating to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [Charter] and international law, removal following an assessment is not contrary to sections 7 and 12 of the Charter. [14]   According to the law, the public interest requires the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to remove any person who is the subject of an enforceable removal order (Shaikh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 110 at para 39). [15]   For all of these reasons, the applicant ’ s stay application is dismissed. ...

A review of the materials filed on this application on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant confirms that controversy exists with respect to the relevance of evidence to be considered by the Court. ... I have considered this matter carefully and have concluded that the application has not been properly brought under Rule 341 in light of the competing views of the parties concerning the relevance of the evidence. ...

Your account has been thoroughly reviewed and your submission carefully considered in relation to the applicable legislation. ... Taxpayers are generally considered to be responsible for errors made by third parties acting on their behalf for income tax matters. ...

We should indicate that the concept of “commercial mainstream” is not a test for determining whether property is situated on a reserve; it is merely an aid to be used in evaluating the various factors being considered. ... Extremely important, particularly in this case, is the type of income being considered as attracting taxation. ... C.A.)] 11 So too, where investment income is at issue, it must be viewed in relation to its connection to the Reserve, its benefit to the traditional Native way of life, the potential danger to the erosion of Native property and the extent to which it may be considered as being derived from economic mainstream activity. ...

However, whether or not, as stated in that case, it is to be considered as settled law that an expenditure for a list of customers, which includes file copies of current insurance policies, is nevertheless to be considered as a current operational expense, it is clear that, where the goodwill of the business is included as part of the assets transferred, the transaction is regarded as the sale of a business as a going concern and the whole expenditure is considered to be of a capital nature. ... Where the transfer of a list of customers includes the goodwill of a business, the expenditure made for the purchase of these assets is considered at law not only to be made once and for all but with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade. ...

Cases not meeting this general rule are not necessarily disqualified from the exemption under subsection 6(6) and will be considered on their merits. ... The term "established community" is considered to mean a body of people who reside in the same locality and who are permanently settled in that location. ... Where there is more than one established community located in an area which is not remote from a work location, the sum total of the services and housing available in all established communities should be considered. ...

It is now settled law, that in order for an undertaking to be considered a source of income, the taxpayer must have realized a profit or have a reasonable expectation of profit from the undertaking [Dorfman v. ... The expectation, however, is not to be considered as limited to that of an immediate profit. ... Gorjup, [1987] 2 C.T.C. 129; 87 D.T.C. 5348 (F.C.T.D.) held that in the particular circumstances of that case which was also a cattle raising operation, ten years was not to be considered an unreasonable length of time to experience start up costs. ...

In any event, the plaintiff's essential argument is that the average exchange rate prevailing at the time of acquisition ought not to have been considered because at that time the plaintiff was in possession of U.S. funds and paid for the securities in those funds, with the result that there was not any conversion. ... These statutory definitions make it clear that when computing the gain or loss realized on the disposition of property such as that of the plaintiff, money must be the measure, and this is so at each and every stage or step that needs to be considered under the Act in establishing such a gain or loss. ... Now, in that context, when the Income Tax Act, a Canadian statute, requires that a gain, a loss, a cost or a price be established or considered, that must be done in Canadian dollars at the relevant time, i.e. at the average exchange rate prevailing at the time such gain or loss occurs, and such cost or price is encountered. ...