Search - considered

However, the Officer then proceeds immediately to expressing the conclusion that, having considered Simbarashe’s personal profile, his personal circumstances, his establishment in Canada, and his links to Canadian society, there were insufficient H&C considerations to grant his application. ...

In reaching this decision, I considered several factors, including: your family ties in Canada and in your country of residence; purpose of visit; your history of having contravened the conditions of entry on a previous stay in Canada (Letter dated October 17, 2016, Embassy Record, at p. 57) [7]                The officer also recorded his reasons in the Global Case Management System [GCMS]: [translation] 5 previous refusals noted. ...

Nor has she complied with the show cause Order or respected any of the Orders issued by the Court. [21]            Accordingly, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Respondent Dianne Blake is guilty of contempt of court. [22]            Before proceeding to impose sentence, the Court received and considered submissions from the Applicant as to the appropriate penalty to impose and reviewed the jurisprudence. ...

The Officer applied the correct provisions of the IRPR in order to conclude that the Applicant’s 2016 income is considered to be a “special benefits” under the Employment Insurance Act, thus including the amount of $41386 in her eligible income. ...

Prince in accordance with the VDP was considered by the Officer in the further reassessment that took place. [12]   Mr.  ...

I agree that this lack of consistency between the two statutes may be a source of confusion for Quebec taxpayers and that it might be considered a source of unfairness, but it is not my role to rewrite the Act to avoid such an outcome. [17]   The applicant failed to show that the decision not to process its tax returns for 2010 and 2012 was unreasonable. ...

Analysis [16]   The RAD’s findings of fact and its application of the law to those facts are subject to review by this Court against the standard of reasonableness (Tretsetsang at para 61). [17]   In Tretsetsang, the Federal Court of Appeal prescribed the following test for refugee claimants who say they are unable to obtain citizenship in another country (at para 72): [...] a claimant, who alleges the existence of an impediment to exercising his or her rights of citizenship in a particular country, must establish, on a balance of probabilities: (a)   The existence of a significant impediment that may reasonably be considered capable of preventing the claimant from exercising his or her citizenship rights of state protection in that country of nationality; and (b)   That the claimant has made reasonable efforts to overcome such impediment and that such efforts were unsuccessful such that the claimant was unable to obtain the protection of that state. [18]   The Federal Court of Appeal expanded upon the meaning of “reasonable efforts” at paragraph 73: What will constitute reasonable efforts to overcome a significant impediment (that has been established by any particular claimant) in any particular situation can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. ...

The applicants did not take issue with the officer’s credibility findings and instead argued that the officer should have considered the country conditions in Eritrea (Gebrewldi at para 18).   ...

I agree that the RAD considered all the evidence in the context of making its decision, including the applicant’s medical condition, the difference between her BOC Form and her testimony as well as other evidence filed. [13]   With respect to the issue of the delay, I share the applicant’s opinion that the delay is not determinative in and of itself: Dcruze v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 171 FTR 76, 1999 CanLII 8254 (FC FI). ...

It is also well settled that in exercising his discretion to grant an adjournment under subsection 35(1) of the Regulations the Adjudicator must direct his attention to factors such as: a) whether the applicant has done everything in her power to be represented by counsel; b) the number of previous adjournments granted; c) the length of time for which the adjournment is being sought; d) the effect on the immigration system; e) would the adjournment needlessly delay, impede or paralyse the conduct of the inquiry; f) the fault or blame to be placed on the applicant for not being ready; g) were any previous adjournments granted on a peremptory basis; h) any other relevant factors. [6]   It is to be noted that recently the Federal Court of Appeal in Montana v Canada (National Revenue), 2017 FCA 194 at paragraph 8 rejected an argument that the factors in Siloch must be considered whenever a party requests an adjournment, it being a non-exhaustive list of the sorts of factors a judge deciding the case may find useful on the facts of the case. [7]   More significantly, however, the rules for Changing the Date of the Time of Proceeding have been radically revised since the decision in Siloch was rendered. ...